Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

HAVERNG CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, by Her Majesty's Command, acquainted the House, That Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives Her Consent, as far as Her Majesty's interest is concerned, That the House may do therein as they shall think fit.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, accordingly read the Third time and passed.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATON BILL

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANS FER OF REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords]

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Bills read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Building Regulations Advisory Committee

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to reorganise his Building Regulations Advisory Committee, in order to give the structural engineering profession stronger representation upon it.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The present Committee of 15 members includes three structural engineers. To add further structural engineers would upset the balance of the Committee.

Mrs. Short: But in view of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee's performance on the fifth amendment, does not my right hon. Friend think that this Committee should be reorganised? Would he consider reappointing members at rather more frequent intervals than is now done?

Mr. Greenwood: I would not subscribe to my hon. Friend's criticism of the work of the Committee. It has worked very quickly, I think, and very effectively under great difficulties. I will bear in mind her suggestion that the membership should be reorganised more frequently, but I am sure that she will realise that I have to strike a balance between the various professional interests involved, and it would be wrong for me to tilt the Committee in one direction.

Building Regulations

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will have discussions with the Institution of Structural Engineers about the re-structuring of the Building Regulations.

Mr. Greenwood: I am always glad to discuss with professional institutions and other bodies matters concerning the Building Regulations.
Officials of the Department have had two recent discussions with representatives of the Institution of Structural Engineers, and both of these touched inter


alia on the structure of the Building Regulations.

Mrs. Short: But does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is a dichotomy between the Building Regulations, which are mandatory, and the advice given by the Institution through the codes of practice committees which lay down good practice? Does he not think that this should be clarified? Would he look at this again?

Mr. Greenwood: We shall shortly be having a further meeting with the Institution of Structural Engineers and I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. I greatly appreciate the interest she takes in this matter.

Housing Subsidy (Brent)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Brent.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): About £519,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Can my hon. Friend tell us the figures for 1964 and 1965?

Mr. Freeson: The figure in 1964 was £119,000 and in 1965–66, £225,000. In effect, this is an increase of about £400,000 over the past five years.

Mr. Rossi: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last set of figures published by the Association of Municipal Treasurers, the Exchequer subsidy represented 13 per cent. of the housing revenue, as against 39 per cent. provided by the rate subsidy? Does he not consider that that is too disproportionate?

Mr. Freeson: I would, of course, have to check those figures to see whether or not they are correct. The question of rate subsidy is a matter not for the Exchequer but for the local authorities concerned. The hon. Gentleman has—as he often does when discussing these matters; the same can be said of many of his hon. Friends—omitted one important fact, which is that the biggest proportion of the so-called rate subsidy is, in fact, expenditure on urban renewal,

salaries on capital account, land holdings, building purchases and like expenditure ahead of the actual building of estates.

Housing Subsidy (Ealing)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Ealing.

Mr. Freeson: About £561,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend agree that, despite the generosity of the Government in their efforts to try to solve the nation's housing problem, boroughs like the London Borough of Ealing appear to be completely devoid of any compassion or sense of urgency in trying to rehouse people in the borough who are desperately in need of homes? Is he with me in condemning the London Borough of Ealing on its housing record?

Mr. Freeson: I have been to see representatives of the London Borough of Ealing. I regret to say that, to date, despite lengthy discussions, probings and urgings on the borough to increase its building programme, a matter of considerable importance to people living in disgraceful housing conditions, the authority has so far not attempted to meet the wishes of the Ministry.

Mr. Rossi: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, from the figures published by the A.M.T.I., that the capital value of the housing stock of this borough is less than the debt charge, and that that in itself is a discouragement to local authorities and is a direct result of Government interest policy?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman may seek to rationalise the situation in boroughs with this kind of problem—boroughs which are not facing up sufficiently to the problem—in that rather gobbledygook fashion. The plain fact is that there is now more Government financial assistance available to housing priority areas such as this, and other boroughs in Inner London, than ever before. There is no reason at all why this borough should not increase its building activities.

Rate Support Grant (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figure for 1964–65.

Mr. Greenwood: The latest estimate of rate support grants payable to the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness for 1969–70 is £2,365,907. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £1,476,952.

Mr. Booth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, without this rate support grant increase, the local authority would have had to increase its rates by 9s. 3d. in the £to maintain the present level of local government services provided in the county borough?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is, I believe, perfectly correct, and it is worth pointing out also that the effect of the domestic element in the case of Barrow is to keep the domestic rate poundage in the present financial year at the same level as for 1969–70.

Sir A. V. Harvey: To save the time of the House, would the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his hon. Friends the fact that all of this could have been put in the Labour candidate's election address on Thursday?

Mr. Molloy: It will be.

Mr. Greenwood: It is not for me to rule on a matter of that kind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say anything improper about my hon. Friend's wish to elicit details about the great degree of generosity which the Government have shown in this matter.

Housing Subsidies (Havering)

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Havering.

Mr. Freeson: About £334,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Mr. Williams: In spite of the large sums of money involved, would my hon.

Friend agree that the London Borough of Havering last year completed only about a dozen houses? Has he had an opportunity to send for the leaders of the council to get them to complete more houses next year?

Mr. Freeson: Havering is one of those authorities which we have added to the list of authorities we are visiting for detailed discussions about their housing situation. We are very concerned not just with the position as it has been stated by my hon. Friend, but in relation to the prospects in the borough; planning for future housing programmes. I have invited representatives from the borough to meet me to discuss all aspects of their housing situation with a view to increasing their efforts.

Mr. Rossi: Do not the housing statistics for 1969 show that Havering completed 529 houses, and not a dozen or so as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman? Why did not the Minister correct him?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman should be more concerned, as we are in this House and in the Department, to get the housing programmes of this and other boroughs, which are in grave need of houses, increased instead of participating in efforts to reduce house building under the leadership of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who is not here today.

Rate Support Grant (Bradford)

Mr. Ford: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Bradford for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figures for 1964–65.

Mr. Greenwood: The latest estimate of rate support grant payable to the County Borough of Bradford for 1969–70 is £11,234,606. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £6,484,388.

Mr. Ford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he say how that would work out in terms of per head of population or in terms of domestic rateable value?

Mr. Greenwood: I think the best help that I can give my hon. Friend is to tell him that without that rate support grant the general rate last year would have been


higher by 22s. 3d. in the £, and that the domestic element which the Government are paying has enabled the domestic rate in the coming financial year to be reduced by 3d. in the £

Mr. Chataway: Would the right hon. Gentleman drop some of this electioneering nonsense and give the comparative figure after allowing for S.E.T. and increased rates of interest?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question to me on that subject, I will gladly give him the answer. If he is really interested in electioneering nonsense, he should have watched television last night.

Rent Rebate Schemes

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent rebate schemes have been introduced and improved by local authorities in England and Wales since he recommended rent rebate schemes to all authorities in Circular 46/67 issued on 29th June, 1967.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): In the two-year period from March, 1967, to March, 1969, the number of housing authorities in England and Wales operating rent rebate schemes increased from about 46 per cent. to about 60 per cent. The number of council tenants covered by these schemes increased from about 64 per cent. to about 80 per cent. Since the circular was issued in June, 1967, many of the schemes then in operation have been improved.

Mr. Price: Would my hon. Friend object if I included those figures in my election address as an example of what a Labour Government endeavour to do for the least well off?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has made a very perceptive observation.

Footpath Maps

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what guidance he has given to local authorities about the operation of the new provisions in the Countryside Act, 1968, enabling any mistakes on footpath maps to be corrected on review.

Mr. Greenwood: Advice about the kind of evidence to which local authorities can properly have regard under these provisions will be included in a circular to be issued shortly to local authorities.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer will be welcomed in the country? Is he also aware that many sober lovers of the countryside like myself are increasingly concerned at the loss of country footpaths to the general public?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that the whole House welcomes sober lovers. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, because I believe it to be true that at present some local authorities are interpreting too widely their powers to enable mistakes to be rectified. I hope that the guidance which I shall shortly be issuing will prevent this from happening in future.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of planning appeals are currently being decided by inspectors.

Mr. Greenwood: Slightly more than 42 per cent., Sir.

Mr. Dunn: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to transfer other forms of appeal to his inspectors on further classifications?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, I am considering this. The progress made in delegating to inspectors is satisfactory. We originally estimated that it would be 46 per cent. It is at the moment 42 per cent., but it is being successful in shortening the time between receipt of notice of appeal and giving a decision. I am considering extending this power of delegation so that about 60 per cent. of appeals will be covered by it.

Rate Support Grant (Southampton)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the estimated rate support grant paid to the County Borough of Southampton for 1969–70; and what was the corresponding figure for 1964–65.

Mr. Greenwood: The latest estimate of rate support grant payable to the County Borough of Southampton for


1969–70 is £5,889,856. The corresponding grants for 1964–65 totalled £3,183,698.

Housing Subsidy (Waltham Forest)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the amount of housing subsidy given in the last year for which figures are available to the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

Mr. Freeson: About £669,000 in 1969–70, Sir.

Mr. Newens: Do not those figures show quite clearly that the savage attacks being made by the Tory-dominated London Borough of Waltham Forest Council on local government services in that borough, consistently blamed on the Government, are totally unjustified? Is he aware of the very serious housing problem which will exist in years to come unless something definite is done about the planning of future housing development in Waltham Forest?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, Sir. It has been the increasing practice in recent times for Conservative spokesmen in many boroughs—not all of them, but in many—to blame difficulties on the problem of heavy costs. It should be stated that more assistance is being given than has ever been given before. In the borough referred to there has been an increase of two-thirds. The figure in 1964 was
£225,000.

Mr. Silvester: Would the hon. Gentleman also admit, however, that despite the increase in housing subsidy, the charge to the rates as a result of the increase in the rate of interest has meant that the rate charge has more than doubled in the period for which he quoted figures?

Mr. Freeson: The rate charge has not doubled. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The main problem facing certain authorities—not all, but certain of them—is the problem of refinancing existing debt on past schemes. This does not affect the cost, or the subsidy towards the cost, of completed schemes. It is at a notional level of 4 per cent. interest charges.

House Building

Mr. Christopher Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local

Government (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of houses that will be started and the number that will he completed in Great Britain during 1970;
(2) how many houses have been started and how many have been completed in Great Britain during 1970 up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Greenwood: It is too early in the year to make a reliable forecast. In the first two months of 1970, 37,536 dwellings were started and 49,963 completed in Great Britain. The decisions we have taken in recent weeks—notably the extra£50 million for local authority lending and the reduction in Bank Rate—will stimulate the rate of house building.

Mr. Ward: Does the Minister recall any previous occasion when a Government were falling short, mainly in the private sector, of their housing target. by 130,000 a year and at the same time there were 1,000 million bricks lying idle and 125,000 building operatives unemployed?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Member is interested in research into past history, I should tell him that in 1963, the last full year of Conservative Government, there were 27,000 starts and 28,000 completions, which is much less than there have been in the present period.

Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the savage cut-back in my borough from 1,900 starts to only 24 has been matched in other boroughs? Is it not deplorable if local borough councils try to cut back Labour's housing programme to make General Election capital?

Mr. Greenwood: What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true. It is of some interest that, in spite of the difficulties, a number of local authorities are managing to maintain a very high level of house building, whereas others, like that to which my hon. Friend has referred, are falling short very seriously.

Mr. Rossi: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is too early to make a forecast for 1970, whereas only four years ago to the day, in 1966, he was able to forecast 500,000 houses being built in 1970? Does he not agree that the figures he has given show the biggest decline in completions since the war?

Mr. Greenwood: That may be due to the fact that at the time to which the hon. Member refers I was Minister for Overseas Development. I have no recollection of having made a prophecy of that kind. Indeed, I do not remember any other Minister of Housing giving a reliable forecast so early in the year.

New Towns (Housing Stock)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he now has regarding the disposal of the housing stock of the Commission for the New Towns.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the timetable for the transfer of new town housing assets to the appropriate local authority.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend is considering this matter and hopes to make a statement in the summer.

Mr. Allason: Will the Minister recognise that his policy of disposal of houses to both tenants and local authorities at market value would impose unacceptable costs on local authorities if, in accordance with Government legislation, houses are handed over to them?

Mr. Howell: No, Sir. As far as I know, the sale of houses at market value has been accepted on both sides of the House, and it would raise serious questions of principle if we attempted to depart from that.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of disappointment in the new towns that more speedy progress has not been made towards handing over new town assets to the local authorities, and that the local authorities are extremely concerned that housing assets should be handed over at existing loan debt?

Mr. Howell: I am well aware that there is a desire for a speedy determination of the matter on the part of local authorities in new town areas. I hope that my announcement of a time when we hope to make a statement will go some way towards satisfying them that the matter is having speedy attention at our end.

Land Commission Levy

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will allow the costs of obtaining planning consent to be taken into account in calculating Land Commission levy.

Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to make such an allowance under the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Allason: When other costs are allowable in these circumstances, why is it that the very costs which are essential to betterment should not be allowed? Should not the Minister think about legislation?

Mr. Howell: The reason they are not allowed is that when the House passed the legislation it decided not to include them.

Thames Flood Barrier

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further information he has now obtained regarding the cost to public funds of the proposed Thames flood barrier.

Mr. Denis Howell: As the hon. Member is aware the Greater London Council is conducting an investigation in depth into all the circumstances surrounding the Thames flood barrier problem. Five scientific and research bodies have been assisting the investigation. Of these the most crucial work is by the Hydraulic Research Station and it is expected that by July this work will have reached a stage to enable a choice to be made of the type of structure and the site. This will also enable a closer estimate of the cost to public funds to be made.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when the time for choices comes the ultimate cost of an operation of that kind should be better met by the beneficiaries, just as the ultimate cost of, say, the Forth or Tay road bridges is met by the beneficiaries and not carried by the generality of taxpayers?

Mr. Howell: It would be very unwise to agree to any such proposition until we have had the result of the detailed research.

Housing Authorities, London (Conference)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will call a conference of housing authorities in London to discuss the housing programme in the Metropolis.

Mr. Greenwood: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion for an all-London conference of authorities carefully in mind.

Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend do this quickly, and do something about the shocking dereliction of housing responsibilities by boroughs like Bexley, Croydon and Merton, and by the G.L.C., whose guilty accomplices sit on the benches opposite and who are neglecting their housing responsibilities to London?

Mr. Greenwood: We are very well aware of the seriousness of the situation, and are having discussions with individual authorities. It is better to get those through before we consider a conference of the London housing authorities. My hon. Friend may be encouraged to know that no fewer than seven London boroughs, including some of the poorest, achieved programmes of over 1,000 dwellings in 1969. The others should seek to emulate them.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does the Minister propose to take any steps to lower the interest rates imposed by the present Government on local authorities, which have had such a hindering effect on the building programme?

Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967. He seems to overlook the fact that high interest rates are not peculiar to this country but are a world phenomenon.

House Building

Mr. Hugh: Jenkins asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the relative contribution in terms of housing building and local authorities, private builders and housing associations.

Mr. Freeson: In the five years ended 31st December, 1969, 41·4 per cent.

of dwellings completed in England were built by or on behalf of public authorities—local authorities, new town authorities and Government Departments—1·5 per cent. by housing associations and 57·1 per cent. by private builders.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people have a much exaggerated idea of the contribution of housing associations to the general house building effort, and that Shelter has pointed out that its actual contribution to housing is minute? What steps does he propose to take to enable the housing associations to make a larger contribution?

Mr. Freeson: The matter falls into two parts, First, there is the position with regard to co-ownership housing associations, those which operate under the aegis of the Housing Corporation. My right hon. Friend has announced an increase of £10 million in the Corporation's capital expenditure for 1970, which together with the building societies' contribution will allow an increase of about £20 million during the coming year. There is also the housing association side whereby local authorities financially sponsor schemes. This is now running at £17 million a year, and is expected to rise in the coming year.

Mr. Chataway: Will the Minister confirm that, in contrast to the pretty miserable assistance given by the Government to housing associations, the Greater London Council is to give £75 million over three years, and that, contrary to what was suggested by his hon. Friend, this could produce 15,000 new and converted dwellings, to which the G.L.C. would have rights to over 9,000?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The housing association movement in the purchase of old properties for conversion relies on the assistance forthcoming under the 1967 Act, whereby help was given for the purchase of property. The G.L.C., like other authorities, is very largely reimbursed from Government sources on this score, and also by way of the grant aid for conversions. The number of dwellings likely to be converted in Greater London in the coming year is estimated to be about 3,000. The total number requiring conversion and modernisation is nearly 250,000.

Housing, Wandsworth

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses Wandsworth Borough Council built in 1969; and what measures he is taking to encourage a better performance in 1970.

Mr. Freeson: In 1969 Wandsworth Council placed 1,565 houses into tender, started 1,073 houses and completed 991 houses. It has been urged to do even better, but as with some other inner London boroughs, this will be difficult without more help from the G.L.C. in providing housing land in Outer London to ease decanting problems from clearance areas.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not the case that, now that my right hon. Friend has wisely prevented the G.L.C. from lumbering Wandsworth Borough Council with a lot of run-down housing estates, it will be better able to concentrate its attention on new housing?

Mr. Freeson: Certainly we shall wish to see Wandsworth and many other boroughs building more houses. One of the most important factors influencing the position in Inner London is the unavailability of housing land for municipal development to ease the pressure on areas requiring demolition in inner London.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister aware that more than three times more houses were completed by the Wandsworth Borough Council in 1969, the first full year of Conservative control, than were completed in 1967, the last full year of Labour control?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting my answers. I have criticised not Wandsworth but the G.L.C. for not making land available in Outer London by purchase to assist Wands-worth and other boroughs.

Hon. Members: Yes or no?

Mr. Freeson: I will answer the specific point. Completions achieved in the first full year of Conservative rule, as in any other borough, depended on starts being made by the Conservatives' predecessors.

Mr. Molloy: On a point or order. Throughout all the questions on housing

concerning the London boroughs there were no supplementary questions, with one exception, put by Conservative hon. Members. The unwholesome and embarrassing burden has been left to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Is that fair on him, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and it is a waste of Question Time.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order at Question Time waste valuable time.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order, which was not a point of order, may I now rise on a point of order? It will be within the recollection of this House that the last Speaker said that anyone who raised a bogus point of order was cheating. What sanction have you, Mr. Speaker? Can you debar that human gargoyle from asking any questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have to bar both hon Members who have just spoken.

House Building Programme

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now state the outcome of his consideration of measures to restore the house building programme.

Mr. Greenwood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 18th March. Also I issued a circular yesterday to local authorities explaining what in my view is the purpose of local authority lending; namely to meet housing needs or to further public policies, which would not otherwise be provided for. It also sets out the method of allocating quotas among local authorities for the current financial year.

Mr. Allaun: While appreciating that action, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look again at two emergency measures—the use of the existing compulsory powers against local authorities which are deliberately cutting down their house building programme, and, secondly, permitting banks to make priority loans to house builders, which they are not at present allowed to do?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. As to the compulsory powers, this is rather a slow process and I am anxious to make much more rapid progress than would be possible through this means. It is necessary that local housing authorities should have much greater determination than they have now. There are authorities like Birmingham, Sheffield and Newham which are managing to build, and there seems to be no reason why other local authorities should not do just as well. On the second question, this is a matter of which the Chancellor will no doubt take note, but it is probably true that at the moment the difficulty facing the builders is not so much in getting credit as in the high interest rates they have to pay if they get it.

Mr. Allason: Why does the right hon. Gentleman concentrate so much on local authority housing when it is a fact that there is a severe shortfall in the private sector? Although he said that he would mention these things to the Chancellor, does he not have some shots in his locker to get private enterprise going?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman must not have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend. He must have been absent from the House on 18th March too. If he will look at HANSARD for that day he will find the very positive measures which the Government announced to help the private sector.

Home Owners (Change of Residence)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will estimate the approximate proportion of home-owners who changed their residence during 1969, and the average cost of the legal fees, including conveyancing, which they incurred.

Mr. Freeson: No information is yet available about 1969. In 1968 about 6 per cent. of home-owners changed their residence. Cost of legal fees depends on the house price, whether or not title is registered, and the nature of the mortgage. So a reliable average cost cannot be given. But a representative example for a mortgagee who sold one house and bought another would be about £140, assuming registered title, building society mortgage, and an average price for a house bought through a building society.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Prices and Incomes Board has twice shown that the average level of conveyancing fees is far too high? Is it not time, particularly in the light of the recent "Which?" report which showed that certain charges were being imposed which were not even justified, for the Government to take urgent action to relieve this burden on the home-owner?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly sympathise with the objectives which my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. As he will be aware, this matter is being considered through the offices of the Lord Chancellor and I hope that there will be some action soon.

Tenants (Change of Residence)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will estimate the approximate proportion of tenants in privately and publicly rented accommodation, respectively, who change their residence in 1969; and what proposals he has to facilitate such movements.

Mr. Freeson: No figures are available for 1969, but in 1968 it is estimated that about one-sixth of the households in privately rented accommodation moved house and about one-sixteenth of those in publicly rented accommodation. The large addition to the national housing stock achieved under the present Administration, and the continued development of the new and expanded towns, is already facilitating greater freedom of choice which will increase mobility, as shortages continue to be eradicated.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend not agree that many council tenants are unable to move about perhaps as freely as they would wish because of the present council procedures? Could he make some statement about the extent to which his investigations into the use of the computer for facilitating transfers and exchanges have progressed?

Mr. Freeson: The actual organisation of exchanges is not something which we in the Ministry undertake. What we have undertaken to do when we meet the local authority associations to discuss the report in a little while from now is to discuss the possibility of a national exchange bureau facility together with the many other


recommendations in the Cullingworth Report.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Greater London, and I believe other parts of the country, it is practically impossible for a local authority tenant to move from one borough into another? Will he consider introducing legislation placing a duty on local authorities to maintain a register of tenants wishing to transfer to other areas so that it would be possible for them to inspect this at a local government office if they wished to move?

Mr. Freeson: There is no specific statutory duty on local authorities to maintain such a register. In London there is a statutory requirement to maintain a general register for London made up of information received from the boroughs. It seems that there is no reason why the kind of suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made, which is in sympathy with remarks from this side of the House, should not be proceeded with by the G.L.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Local Government Finance (Green Paper)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will make a statement about the timing and implementation of the Government's proposals to reform local government finance.

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The Government's proposals will be set out in the Green Paper which was foreshadowed in the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4276). I hope to publish the Green Paper in good time to allow for consultation and public discussion, and then to synchronise the implementation of its proposals with the changes in the structure of local government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will that be published before or after the General Election, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor promised this just before the 1966 election?

Mr. Crosland: As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, this no doubt will depend on the date of the General Election, which I cannot forecast to the House today. As to the second part, owing to the unique importance which this Government attach to local government, regional planning, pollution and other matters, I have no predecessor, and never had one.

Regional Planning Councils and Local Planning Authorities

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what action he has taken to develop co-operation between regional planning councils and local planning authorities to ensure harmonisation of aims and policies.

Mr. Crosland: The planning councils and the local planning authorities in their regions are already in frequent touch with each other. And I want to develop cooperation between them still further. I have already discussed this with the planning council chairmen, and I propose shortly to discuss it with the local authority associations concerned. Moreover, I have, on recent regional visits, held joint meetings with representatives of both the planning councils and the groupings of local planning authorities. I intend to have similar discussions in other regions in the coming months.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the real test in Lancashire in this matter will come in the years ahead if the new central Lancashire town is built? Will he undertake to keep the House informed of attempts to improve this consultation?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, gladly.

Local Government (North-East Essex)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what recent representations have been made to him from North-East Essex about the Government's proposals over the Maud Report on Local Government; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Crosland: A number of authorities in this part of Essex sent comments last


autumn on the structure of local government proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. These were taken fully into account before we reached the conclusions set out in the recent White Paper. A general invitation to comment on areas and boundaries was issued just before Easter, and Essex authorities will no doubt be amongst those who will be letting us have their further views.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Secretary of State aware of how much authorities in this area wish to have Colchester as their centre and not Ipswich? Will he state his views about this?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the feelings in this part of Essex. No doubt this and other matters can be discussed in the forthcoming boundary consultations.

Ombudsman System

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will now introduce legislation to provide for the appointment of Parliamentary Commissioners to investigate complaints of maladministration in the sphere of local government along the lines recommended in Command Paper No. 4276.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 29th January. Now that the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation has been published, the next step is to work out the details of the scheme with the local authority associations. Consultations for this purpose will start shortly. —[Vol. 794, c. 414.]

Mr. Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that some form of ombudsman in local government is becoming ever more necessary, particularly as so many local authorities have fallen under the control of the Conservative Party? Will he consider implementation of this matter as one of urgency?

Mr. Crosland: I agree that the need is becoming more urgent, no doubt among other reasons for the reasons my hon. Friend has given. We propose to push on with consultations as rapidly as we can.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the blatant electioneering that has gone on during

the whole of this Question Time is a complete waste of time—that it has wasted the time of those who prepared the Answers and those who have had to listen? Will he improve the standard and be more objective?

Mr. Crosland: Perhaps that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me. All I can say is that the standards of questions and answers, particularly of answers, has been consistently higher than the standard of the party political broadcast given last night.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF ITALY (VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Italian Prime Minister to visit Great Britain.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

Mr. Marten: In view of the increasing strength of the Italian Communist Party can the right hon. Gentleman say, without perhaps referring to my slightly hypothetical Question, how he sees his aim of political unification with Europe if the Italian Communist Party should gain power in Italy after the June elections?

The Prime Minister: The Italian Communist Party is a problem for the Italian people to deal with and not for ourselves. I have nothing to add to what I have previously said about political unity in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — NASSAU AGREEMENT

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister which clauses of the Nassau Agreement, Command Paper No. 1915, he informed President Johnson he reserved the right to renegotiate without any time limit.

The Prime Minister: As I made clear in reply to supplementary questions by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) on 19th May, 1966, the issue is that of independent use of the deterrent. —[Vol. 728, c. 1547-8.]

Mr. Blaker: Is not the central fact about the nuclear deterrent that the Government have reversed their previous policy? Is it really too difficult for the Prime Minister to say so?

The Prime Minister: The Government have not in any way reversed their previous policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I dealt with this question very fully as early as December, 1964, on the question of the so-called deterrent. In the Questions to which I referred and which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt study, he will see that the situation then was what it is now.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As my right hon. Friend has not changed his policy in this matter, will he say when he expects to open discussions with the President as to precisely when renegotiation shall take place?

The Prime Minister: I made clear in the Answer which I have quoted that this was a matter of when there was a truly collective deterrent in N.A.T.O. That will be the time for the negotiations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the situation was the same then as it is now, and is now as it was then, is it not a fact that we can resume the use of our Polaris submarines if there were a case of dire national emergency and we wished to do so?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was away when that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in a statement which was half-quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, although he failed to quote the rest of the sentence and therefore gave a misleading impression. It has been very fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman can study what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION AND BENEFITS (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to amalgamate the Departments of the Inland Revenue responsible for the direct taxation of individuals with the departments of the Ministry of Health and Social Security responsible for the payment of direct benefits to individuals.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 1st April, 1969.—[Vol. 781, c. 233.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Labour Party's election pledge to seek ways of integrating tax allowances and cash benefits payable through National Insurance? Is this a pledge that the Government intend to redeem? Is he aware that while the two Departments continue to operate in the old-fashioned way it is obvious that the Government are failing to achieve social justice or to eliminate poverty?

The Prime Minister: Everyone appreciates the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject and the most distinguished contribution made to it some years ago by another member of his family. He will be aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who was very keen on the same idea some years ago when he was in charge of these matters. The conclusion reached by the Government at that time was that there is a case for this, and that when computerisation has gone a good deal further, in a year or two, it can be considered then. We examined it thoroughly but it is not possible to do it in a useful or meaningful way now.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister, what further consultations he has had with other heads of Governments regarding the application to join the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17th March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). I am looking forward to seeing the Swedish Prime Minister later this afternoon.—[Vol. 798, c. 104.]

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of us who on balance are in favour of joining the Common Market consider that all the facts and all the information should be given, as was done in the Government's White


Paper? Is not it arrogant, for example, for the Liberal leader to expect British people to be silent, passive observers on such an important issue for our country?

The Prime Minister: It is our policy to give all the available information, and that is what we tried to do in the White Paper which the House debated. I said on that occasion that, as the negotiations proceeded, we would ensure that the House was kept fully informed of all facts which were necessary to enable the House and the public to make up their minds on this matter.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be useful to have consultations with the Governments of other countries which may also be applying for membership of E.E.C., particularly on matters on which so far there is no Common Market policy, such as discussions on fishing with the Norwegians?

The Prime Minister: We are in close touch with the other applicants, including Ireland. We are in touch with E.F.T.A., with the Irish Government and with the neutral countries on all these matters, but I am doubtful whether there would be a case for a collective meeting of the applicants and those others who are primarily concerned, whether in E.F.T.A. or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister which areas he proposes to visit when he goes to Scotland on 24th April.

The Prime Minister: My visit to Scotland which will now take place on 22nd April will be to Oban.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why is not the right hon. Gentleman including a trip to Dundee on his occasion? Is he afraid that he might have his 1964 pledge on jute jobs thrown in his teeth? If he is, will he consider switching round the texts this time and recommending an increased navy in Dundee and the safety of jute jobs in Chatham?

The Prime Minister: I would very much like to visit Dundee. I am having difficulty in tracing the speech in 1964 in

Dundee. As far as I remember, and I think that I remember correctly, I was not in Dundee in 1964, and I can trace no record of this. If the hon. Gentleman will send me the cutting of my visit, real or mythical, I shall be very glad to look into it.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous Conservative Government made changes to the detriment of the protection of the jute industry without the consent of both sides of the industry? The present Government have never done this; every change has been with the consent of both sides of the industry.

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I also remember that they were trying to de-schedule Dundee, and I denounced that proposal. For a development area it would have been a ridiculous policy. When this was dealt with by the House on 25th February, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said in relation to the jute quotas which have been troubling the hon. Gentleman that both sides of the industry have acknowledged that the introduction of quotas has had no effect on the employment situation in Dundee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. McNamara: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make an official visit to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) on 5th March.—[Vol. 797, c. 158.]

Mr. McNamara: I rather expected that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Inspector-General who called in Scotland Yard to investigate the case of Mr. Samuel Devenney has been welcomed throughout Ireland by those people who are concerned to see that justice is achieved, and that it is by these proper constitutional measures that we can hope for salvation in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: When I had to face a certain degree of pressure about calling in Scotland Yard, including an all-night sitting—I hope the hon. Lady the


Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has recovered—I made it clear that this was a matter to be decided constitutionally by the Government of Northern Ireland and by the Inspector-General of Constabulary. He has now done on his own initiative what it was appropriate for him to do if he so thought fit, and that is to bring in Scotland Yard to help with the inquiry.

Mr. Heath: I recognise that the House will shortly debate the whole question of Northern Ireland, but I should like to ask for one assurance from the Prime Minister which can be given only by him. The House will be aware of the serious statement which is reported to have been made yesterday by the G.O.C. that the Army may not be allowed to stay in Northern Ireland long enough for the problems to be solved. I do not know whether the G.O.C. is correctly reported. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that no question of withdrawing the Army has arisen, and that he will adhere to the previous assurances given by the Government that the forces will remain there so long as these problems are being solved. In parenthesis, may I ask him whether it would not be better if these matters were handled by Ministers either here at Westminster or in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I have not had a chance of checking whether the G.O.C. was correctly reported, and I shall certainly not lend myself to criticism of the G.O.C. in anything he says or does, having regard to the extremely tense situation with which he has been dealing in this past week, in which he has shown great courage and great judgment.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to put his main question. We have made it clear, and I repeat again, that we shall keep troops there as long as is necessary to fulfil the job which they have to do. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that last week we strengthened the number of troops by sending an additional battalion, because of the present situation. It is not our intention to keep troops there on that scale and in that number when the situation quietens down. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, even after the situation has quietened down and security has been fully re-established, with the Ulster Defence Regiment functioning and

policing properly, we intend to have some (troops there for a considerable time ahead. But there is no question of taking risks with Northern Ireland security by withdrawing troops so long as there is any reason for not so doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL LAW (LAW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Home Office and the Law Officers in implementing the recommendations of the Law Commission on matters affecting the criminal law.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Four of the Reports of the Law Commission so far published have included proposals for changes in the criminal law. All these proposals have been carefully considered, and most of them have been embodied in legislation.

Mr. Fraser: Have not the Government made considerable progress in revising and bringing up to date the criminal law? Will the Prime Minister confirm that no responsible body—and I do not include the Opposition in that statement—has suggested that trespass and public demonstrations should be subject to the rigours of the criminal law, and that the Government have no proposals to introduce legislation to that effect?

The Prime Minister: In dealing with organised and other forms of crime, the Government have done a great number of things, including strengthening the police force quantitatively and qualitatively—equipment and so on—that were never done before we came into office. It is equally true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that changes in the law can have a great bearing on the crime problem. For example, the fundamental changes in the Gaming Act which were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which led to the danger of a criminal Mafia in this country, is one of the most important legislative changes in the matter of crime.
We have been considering the law of trespass for many months. The Government and the police have never been


happy about being involved in the criminal or any other sense in trespass matters, particularly in cases affecting landlord and tenant.

Sir D. Renton: In view of what the Prime Minister has said and claims, will he explain why the number of crimes committed goes on increasing every year?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this should not be a matter for interparty argument—[Interruption.] It has been stirred up as a political matter by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Fair enough, if they want to do it. If they want to know the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, the annual average rate of crime has increased by 5·3 per cent. over the past five years. I give that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It increased by an annual average rate of 9·6 per cent. in the previous five years.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the figures for violent crime, will the Prime Minister ask the Law Commission to consider whether it would be a good idea to intimate to criminals that anyone carrying a deadly weapon would be liable to have five years added to any sentence which would otherwise be imposed upon him, and so stop the carrying of weapons?

The Prime Minister: These are matters which the Law Commission, and indeed other inquiries, can continue to study, but my right hon. Friend will remember the Government introducing a Measure which was supported by him and which considerably increased the penalties for the carrying of guns. I think this was about three years ago. Penalties were increased to truly penal proportions, and quite rightly so.

Mr. Hogg: Although I accept that one does not want to make a grievous social problem of this kind a football of party politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—do not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated, showing a consistent rise year by year in the total of professional crime in this country of a serious character, constitute a serious social problem? Is it not therefore inevitable that Parliament should interest itself in this matter as of the highest priority? Would not any party on either

side of the House which did not do so be failing in its responsibility?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the figures are grave and have been for many years. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to resist the temptations which he made clear. It is right that all parties in this House should discuss this matter, but I find that he is more willing to discuss them outside the House than inside the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads some of his recent pronouncements—and I have even heard some of them on television—including incriminating me in the activities of the train robbers, who I think were even caught under the right hon. Gentleman, and in the activities of a number of other criminals who practised under the right hon. Gentleman and, as it happens, were caught under us, perhaps he would feel that he was making this rather too much of a party football. He must not be surprised when we boot the ball back to the other end.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has no status in a matter of this sort, since only recently in the courts he defended a gaming club which because of its reputation failed to obtain a licence? Is that not conducing to crime?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to comment on the professional activities of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is sometimes suggested that lawyers take briefs they do not believe in wholeheartedly. I do not know if that is true, but certainly what lawyers do is to be dissociated from their position as Members of Parliament and as shadow spokesmen. The position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as shadow spokesman helps a little to crystallise this issue of law and order since the public will have to decide whether it wants my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had a number of distinguished clients in the courts, including the right hon. Gentleman, and that I was extremely proud to appear for him? May I return to the subject by asking him whether he is aware that the only thing I have criticised about the right hon. Gentleman is that a certain degree


of complacency seemed to creep into his Nottingham speech.

The Prime Minister: On the first point, may I say that I was proud to be represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was in no doubt about his sincerity in accepting that brief, but then I am not a gaming club. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his concern with law and order will agree with what I said earlier that we were right to correct the activities of the gaming fraternity who had been let loose, and a lot of dangerous people were trying to get into this country under legislation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to his comments about complacency in my Nottingham speech, he obviously did not read the whole speech, and certainly did not quote the relevant parts. Nor has he mentioned another speech that I made a little later on the subject of law and order. But since the burden of his remarks was related to my responsibility for the train robbers, may I say that I was not a bit complacent about the train robbers.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose——

Hon. Members: Walter!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the House for advice. Mr. Edward Short. Statement.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. We have just had an exchange across the House between two right hon. Gentlemen which is obviously dangerous to Parliament unless we can have a Ruling from the Chair.
I should have thought that it was against the procedures of the House—and I should like to know whether Erskine May has pronounced on it—to have an exchange where the private professional operations of a Member are dragged in as part of a political argument in this House.
If the exchange to which we have just listened is allowed to pass without an official Ruling, I do not see how a practising barrister can make any contribution in this House—[Interruption]—or, for that matter, a trade union official who operates in the same way.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Just look at them over there!

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Could there be a Ruling from the Chair, Sir, to make it quite clear that such an exchange to which we have just listened is unparliamentary and ought not to be entered into?

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to what passed between the two right hon. Gentlemen, but I thought that it was good-natured badinage between the two.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say, as the Prime Minister was not here yesterday, whether your strictures on the length of Answers apply to answers which are not answers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The strictures I made were couched in very broad terms. They could apply to any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen in the House.

Mr. Henig: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is now in his place, and since he had down an interesting Question No. Q3 earlier, would it not be in order for that Question to be asked and answered now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bogus point of order.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. We continue in the House to get this cheating on the other side. [Interruption.] When have I raised a point of order that was not a point of order, you great, ugly brute?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am neither great nor ugly.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if that was thought to be a reflection on the Chair. But we look at these animals on the other side of the House day in and day out. We cannot particularise.
My point of order is quite simple, short and fair. Within the last 20 minutes we have had one moron, the right hon. Gentleman—if I may say so; he is not right and he is not honourable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] Now we have another one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must——

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that.
Within the space of 10 minutes we had another one, with spectacles on his kisser to try to make himself look intelligent, who raised another point of order which was not a point of order. When, Mr. Speaker, will you regard this as cheating? [Interruption.] I am not raising a point of order. I am raising a point of order on points of order which are not points of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order on points which are not points of order are not points of order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a much more serious point of order. Is it not clear that the interchanges between the Front Benches deprive Question Time to the Prime Minister of its usefulness by blotting out a number of Questions which might have been asked?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for there to be interchanges between the Front Benches during Question Time. That is the simple answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order.

NATIONAL LIBRARIES COMMITTEE (REPORT)

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the action which the Government have decided to take on the Report of the National Libraries Committee.
The Government have decided to accept in principle the main recommendation of the National Libraries Committee, namely, that a national libraries authority should be established, to take over in due course the administration of the present British Museum Library and National Reference Library of Science and Invention and other institutions.
Further consideration is being given to the title, structure, scope and responsibilities of this organisation and to a number of other issues raised in the Committee's report. These will form the subject matter of a White Paper to be

issued after further consultation as a preliminary to legislation.
Meanwhile, in the light of the Committee's recommendations on the siting of the British Museum Library and the National Reference Library of Science and Invention, and taking account of the latest technical developments in the storage of books a new preliminary assessment has been made of the possibility of meeting the needs of both libraries on a smaller area of the Bloomsbury site than was previously envisaged for the British Museum Library alone.
This gives grounds for hope that it might prove possible to meet the needs of both libraries, while providing considerably more housing on the site than was included in the earlier plan, preserving all the main listed buildings including the whole of the west side of Bloomsbury Square, and removing the need for a further site elsewhere in Central London for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention.
In view of the results of this preliminary assessment, the Government have decided to explore further the feasibility of a solution on these lines, in consultation with the planning authorities concerned. They will regard the provision of a new building for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention as having first priority in these fuller studies. In reaching their final conclusion they will, of course, pay full regard to the requirements of the users of both libraries.
The Government appreciate the importance of having the Patent Office within easy walking distance of the combined libraries and are considering possible sites for the purpose.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Minister aware that we welcome his decision to accept the main recommendations of Dainton to set up a national libraries authority? May I ask him two questions?
First, will the consultations to which he has referred include consultations with the trustees of the British Museum and a wide range of library opinion about the other recommendations of Dainton?
Secondly, would it be correct to conclude from the rather diffuse second part of his statement that the Bloomsbury site is now fairly certain to be chosen


for the new buildings, subject only to confirmation that it is technically possible?

Mr. Short: The answer to the first of the hon. Lady's questions is, Yes, Sir. The answer to her second question is that we are now carrying out a feasibility study on the site. I am hopeful that both libraries, with a considerable amount of additional housing, can be provided on it.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of university staff and research workers who use the British Museum Library annually will be delighted that he has now agreed to reconsider his earlier decision and allow this building to be erected on what may be a slightly smaller—though that is not so important—portion of the Bloomsbury site adjacent to the British Museum?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reference to taking advantage of the latest technical developments mean that consideration will be given to the computerisation of the indices in separate libraries which may be linked, on the lines of the system being developed in the United States at present? Would he even consider possible computer links between the libraries of this country and those of the United States and other countries in due course?

Mr. Short: Without committing myself to the last part of that question, this is the kind of technical development to which I was referring and which will make it possible to erect both libraries on a smaller site.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his acceptance of this report will not lead to a greater concentration of library resources in the Metropolis than there is at present?

Mr. Short: Yes, but it is essential that this very important national complex of libraries should be assembled on one site in Central London.

Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming this belated statement, 10 months after the publication of the report, that the Government are still considering and dis-

cussing this matter, can the Minister give any date for the publication of the White Paper? Will he bear in mind that, while there is a shortage of shelving space for books, there is also a desperate shortage of space for the bottoms of the world's scholars?

Mr. Short: I know nothing about the bottoms of the world's scholars, but, dealing with the first part of the question, it is a very complex decision and it has necessarily taken a very long time and a great many consultations.

Sir Eric Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trustees of the British Museum welcome the Government's decision to set up a national library authority, presumably on the Bloomsbury site. But, in so far as the British Museum Library will presumably form the nucleus of a large part of the new establishment, will he assure us that the trustees of the British Museum will be consulted between now and the White Paper and the subsequent legislation about the scope and responsibility of the new authority and the physical planning of the new buildings?

Mr. Short: I would pay tribute to the help that I have had from the trustees of the British Museum. I have had very close consultations with them. Certainly, I give the assurance that, between this statement and the White Paper and between the White Paper and the legislation, there will be the closest consultation with the museum authorities.

Mr. Lane: In preparing the White Paper, will the Minister give full weight to the anxieties of those in the library service who feel that the Dainton proposals rather favour the science subjects at the expense of the arts and the humanities?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems confronting would-be readers is the inadequacy of staff and that it is a great problem for such readers to get out books with reasonable celerity? Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the indices of the British Museum Library are wildly out of date and that one section published as lately as four years ago includes documents which were burned in the blitz?

Mr. Short: I agree that this matter is very urgent. That is why I have made my statement today. We hope to publish a White Paper this summer.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is the Minister aware that his decision will be specially welcomed by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee which, two years ago, issued a report on the collection, dissemination and storage of scientific and technological information? This matter is urgent. Can he say what proposals he has for accelerating information services in respect of science, technology and industry under the auspices of the body which he is about to set up?

Mr. Short: As soon as the legislation has been passed, which I hope will be in 1971, the national libraries authority—though I hope that we will not call it that, but will find a better name—will be set up and will get down to this kind of job.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

3.52 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make lawful the administration of euthanasia at the request of the recipient.
This matter has already been discussed on three occasions in another place. The last was in 1969, when the noble Lord, Lord Raglan's Bill was defeated on Second Reading by 61 votes to 40. It seems to me that at this point in history it is appropriate that the subject should now be discussed here and that legislation should be introduced changing the present statutory situation. My argument rests on the contention that the choice of life or death should always be with the individual concerned, and that the things that happen to him should be in accordance with his values and not the values of others.
At the moment, of course, the choice is with the doctors who always deal with their patients in the very best way possible, but always in accordance with their own values. It became clear, in the debate in another place, that doctors fall broadly into three groups. The first was described by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, when he said that a certain amount of euthanasia was already practised. He gave as an example a man who was suffering from terrible cancer and who contracted pneumonia, but to whom antibiotics were not administered because it was thought better he should die rather than continue to live.
The second group of doctors are those, broadly speaking, who do
not strive
Officiously to keep alive
the patient, and who act in terms of what they consider to be their own humane values. The third group are those who think that life has an absolute value and that in no circumstances must the flame be extinguished, even in circumstances in which there is no consciousness, no personality, just a living organic shell and nothing else. It seems to me entirely wrong that an individual, whether he favours euthanasia or is opposed to it, should not have his choice prevail over the doctors who are going to care for him. In terms of individual liberty, the choice


should always be with the individual. It should be his choice and if he cannot act for himself he should be able to say how he wishes to be treated.
Since 1961, in this country a man has had a right to take his own life when he is able to do so. This is clearly recognised. Given the developments that have taken place in medical science and the possibility of keeping people alive in circumstances that would not have been possible in the past, it seems to me that one should be able to speak with one's own voice, on the basis of one's own values, to say how one wishes to be treated in certain circumstances.
For example, if I am motoring to this House, and am involved in a motor accident and I suffer irreparable brain damage, I do not wish to be kept alive. I wish to be eased gently and comfortably out of life; and I would hope to be cared for by a doctor who shared these values. But at the moment I run the chance of being cared for by one who has absolute values. Similarly, anybody who has this absolute value runs the chance of being cared for by one of these doctors who takes a different view.
I suggest to the House that we have arrived at a moment in time when statutory legislation is necessary to ensure that the individual can exercise his own effective choice. How can this be done? I suggest that it can be done by an individual declaration which can be in favour of voluntary euthanasia, or can be against it; and that such a statement should accompany a man's or woman's medical record.
I take as a definition of euthanasia that given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who defined it as the termination of life at the request of the individual for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering in the last extremity. I believe that the kind of form that such a declaration should take, although I am not suggesting that this wording is final, is that proposed in the noble Lord, Lord Raglan's Bill, namely:
I declare that I subscribe to the code set out under the following articles:—
If I should at any time suffer from a serious physical illness or impairment reasonably thought in my case to be incurable and expected to cause me severe distress or render me incapable of rational existence, I request the administration of euthanasia at

a time or in circumstances to be indicated or specified by me or, if it is apparent that I have become incapable of giving directions, at the discretion of the physician in charge of my case.
In the event of my suffering from any of the conditions specified above, I request that no active steps should be taken, and in particular that no resuscitatory techniques should be used, to prolong my life or restore me to consciousness.
This declaration is to remain in force unless I revoke it…
Of course, nobody should sign such a declaration unless he wants to and unless it is in accord with his own values; and such a declaration, if it accompanied his medical records, would have to be renewed periodically; or similarly, there might be a central registry. But the important point is that one should be treated in accordance with one's own values. One should act as an adult in a civilised society.
In a leading article, The Times this morning suggested that it was better to leave it to the humane values of the doctors. I suggest that this is a paternalistic argument. It means that if one is lucky one has someone who shares one's values and if one is unlucky one has somebody who is opposed to them. The choice must be with the individual. Legislation is needed at this particular time for this to be achieved.
I hope that the House will give me the opportunity of bringing in my Bill so that the subject can be discussed at much greater length. I regret the brevity of my argument, but, of course, this is the nature of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. I have simply discussed the principle, the issue of choice, and whether it should be with you, with me, or with others. We should be treated, when we can no longer consciously choose suicide for ourselves, in accordance with our values; one may call it suicide by proxy if one likes.
It seems to me that this is a choice as an adult that I should be able to make and I hope that sufficient of my fellow hon. Members will share my view and give me leave to introduce the Bill.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The subject of this Bill is the question involving life and death. It is, therefore. a very grave and important issue. I would like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for


Yarmouth (Dr. H. Gray) on the manner in which he has presented his case. I would like to congratulate him, too, on his courage, which always commends itself to the House. I believe that many hon. Members with majorities less exiguous than his might shrink from espousing such a controversial question in what is likely to be an election year. But it is doubtless because, like myself, he is a doctor of philosophy and so is able to adopt a disinterested attitude.
One great achievement of our age is that we have been enabled to conquer disease and illness and increase life expectancy in a way no other age has seen. I believe this to be a substantial blessing. Life is an uncovenanted gift, and if one can extend its scone and span the possibilities for achievement and happiness are proportionately increased. But as one welcomes the advance of medical science one would be shallow indeed if one did not see the very real and complex problems with which we are faced by this prolonging of life. It is true that more people are exposed today to the chance of terminal illness than in the past. While more will survive, they may well find themselves surviving in a state where their powers and faculties have waned or wasted away.
The response of the supporters of euthanasia to this very real problem is to allow such people as painlessly as possible to be put, at their request, out of their misery. This is a response which I recognise is inspired by compassionate concern and by humanitarian motives. I do not doubt that, but equally I do not doubt that it is neither truly compassionate nor humane to facilitate euthanasia as proposed in the Bill.
My approach to the problem, first of all, as it must be, given my beliefs, is religious. In common with the majority, though not all, who find themselves heirs to the Judao-Christian tradition, I believe that it is ultimately God, not man, who has the disposal of human life. In the last analysis we are the created, not the Creator, and we are bound by the given of our condition.
Having said that, it is necessary to recognise that the hallmark of our humanity is freedom and that the glory of being human is precisely that we can transend the limits of our nature.

Between the two poles of our freedom and creaturehood there is inevitably a tension, never sharper than today when an advancing technology is putting greater and greater powers into the hands of man. It is on our resolution of that tension that the future of our humanity depends.
In helping us to resolve the particular tension which the Bill presents, there is one reasonably sure guide, namely, the moral values that are shared in our society that constitute both its inherited and its developing wisdom. It is now proposed to do away with part of that wisdom, namely, the fact that we deny to any individual the right to dispose of the life of another and that life can only be taken in extreme cases at the hands of the State. Many who do not share my theological presuppositions will, I think, subscribe to that view, because to do away with it would deprive our society of an essential protection and expose us to a whole variety of dangers.
The burden of proof that this is not so must lie upon those advocating this fundamental change. They must show that it will not undermine respect for the value of life. They must show that the safeguards they propose are adequate. I do not believe that this burden of proof has been discharged by the proposer today.
The central point of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Yarmouth was that the Bill presented a transfer of choice, that the Bill would take away a right from the doctor and confer it upon the patient. I think that that is a profoundly inadequate analysis of the situation. I believe that the Bill would not transfer a right, but would create an entirely new right of allowing one person to kill another, albeit at that person's request.
It is not true to imply that a doctor at present has a discretion to dispose of life. A doctor, whatever his views, is under a duty to preserve life. The knowledge that that is so is the basis of the patient-doctor relationship. That does not mean that there is a duty to prolong life at any cost. That would be neither good morality nor good medicine. Lord Horder, a very great doctor, once said that the good doctor will know how to distinguish between prolonging life and prolonging the act of dying.
There is surely a clear moral distinction between administering a pain-killing drug in the knowledge that it may or will shorten life and administering a drug with the direct intention to kill. The safeguard of that distinction is contained in the standards of the medical profession, supported by the law. Take away either of those safeguards and the patient and the doctor are exposed to equal danger.
Let us consider the case of old people in particular, whom the Bill sincerely intends to help. What kind of agonising moral pressure could open up to a sick old person if the Bill were to pass into law? It is not only unscrupulous relatives who might create pressure—they would be a minority—but the mental processes of the old person that would do so. He would be asking himself, "Should I cease to be a burden to those who are looking after me? Are they thinking that I am a burden? Should I take this step or should I not?" What then has become of the peaceful, easy death which is held out by the supporters of the Bill?
I believe these to be powerful arguments, but, strong as they are, my most rooted objection to the Bill is that it is a short-cut: it offers a simple solution to problems of the highest complexity. The problems that arise today in our society from the need and desire of those suffering from incurable disease to die in peace and in dignity are much

complicated than mere relief from physical pain.
There is an inner misery and loneliness which afflicts such people which needs to be assuaged. What causes more agony to dying people in these conditions than anything else is the sense of being written off when they are, in fact, alive; being treated as dead when they are still living. It is precisely this mentality that I fear the Bill will induce not only in the dying person, but also in relatives and medical attendants.
The final stage of an incurable illness can be a wasteland, but it need not be. It can be a vital period in a person's life reconciling him to life and to death and giving him an interior peace. [Interruption.]This is the experience of people who have looked after the dying. To achieve that needs intense loving and tactful care and co-operation between relations and medical attendants. This painstaking, conscientious, constructive approach to the dying is, I believe, more human and compassionate than the snuffing out pro posed by those who are well-intentioned, but who seem to understand little of the complexities of the needs of those they a are attempting to help.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No 13 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) and negatived.

NORTHERN IRELAND

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. Speeches should be reasonably brief. Mr. Pounder.

Mr. Pounder: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
While there may be occasions when emotional oratory and histrionics may be appropriate, the subject that we are discussing today—the current situation in Northern Ireland—is not the occasion, in my view, for such dangerous exercises. The views involved are much too grave. Indeed, since this emergency debate was granted by you, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there have been two further explosions in Belfast. Both properties damaged are located in my constituency.
Frequently reference is made in this House to the effect which our words may have on the general public. Often the effect is at best minimal, but there are exceptions, and so far as Northern Ireland is concerned real attention will be paid to our deliberations here this afternoon. Make absolutely no mistake on that score. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every hon. Member who participates in this debate to show the utmost restraint and moderation of tone and great importance will be attached to the words from the Government Front Bench later in the debate. In anticipation of their contribution, may I thank them very much for being here.
It would be a great mistake for anyone to dismiss the street violence of recent days as being merely the actions of a youthful hooligan element. While these young persons have been the activists—and it is worth noting that one of those arrested did not come from Belfast not even from Northern Ireland, but from County Longford, in the middle of the Irish Republic—nevertheless, it is the figures in the background who are manœuvring, manipulating, inflaming and encouraging these hooligans, who must be winkled out.
Until this is done there can be no real grounds for optimism of the restoration

of peace in the Province. It is the stock-in-trade of the anarchist revolutionary to give the screw another vicious twist at periodic intervals just when temperatures appear to be cooling and each turn of the screw brings closer the attainment of breaking point. This is the pattern which would appear to be currently and tragically developing in Northern Ireland.
General Freeland, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, in his Press conference in Belfast, on Friday last, rightly pointed to the existence of sinister elements at work in Northern Ireland and his views expressed on that occasion were very forcibly underscored by a feature article which appear in The Times today, which I am sure has been read by many hon. Members. It is a sobering assessment and it states:
Our investigations in Belfast suggest a pattern of deliberate intent behind last week's rioting in the Roman Catholic estate of Ballymurphy and the chain of bomb explosions that has followed.… Our inquiry showed that the initiative has been seized by a group representing the rejuvenated old guard of the Irish Republican Army. They believe that their traditional objective of securing a united Ireland through the destruction of the Protestant dominated North has gained a new credibility in the climate of violence created by the rioting last summer. They are eager to cash in on it.
So said The Times and to further its aim it is admitted in that article by a spokesman for the I.R.A. that it supports the Civil Rights Movement on the ground that for physical force to succeed it is necessary first to engage in social agitation and that this would be followed by physical force.
Even Mr. Edward McAteer, the Nationalist leader, acknowledges the I.R.A.'s involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Against this background, it ill behoves those hon. Members who, during our deliberations before Christmas on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, claimed, as they did, that there was no need for the new regiment and that the spectre of the I.R.A. was a figment of Unionist imagination. I hope that they will now have the good grace to recognise that they misread the situation.

Mr. H. J. Delargy: The hon. Gentleman surprises me and no doubt many others in the House by saying that Mr. McAteer has said that the I.R.A. is engaged in this campaign. Would the hon. Gentleman please quote?

Mr. Pounder: I shall certainly quote from page 10, c. 5, of The Times, which states:
Mr. Edward McAteer, the veteran Nationalist leader, told us that the civil rights movement had been eclipsed by rekindled republicanism.
That, in the context of the whole tone of the article of the rejuvenated I.R.A., leads one only to the conclusion of the analogy I have sought to show. I have done so in good faith believing that article to be a fair comment; and the interpretation aspect is equally fair. If I have inadvertently appeared to put words in his mouth which should not reasonably have been done, I am certainly prepared to withdraw them, but I do not think that in the context in which they appeared my interpretation is necessarily unfair.
Another point—and I do not wish to belabour this question of the extent to which the Civil Rights Movement has been infiltrated by political outsiders—it is only fair to draw attention to the comment of Mrs. Edwina Stewart, a vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland Communist Party, who, at that party's recent conference, said that it was important that Communist Party members continued to play a leading rôle in the Civil Rights Movement.
A feature of recent debates on Northern Ireland in this House has been a tendency to engage in a series of recriminations. I hope, that today's debate will mark a departure from this sterile form of argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If this House has a genuine concern for Northern Ireland, as I believe it has, then I hope that that concern will be manifest in constructive comment.
I wonder whether I may seek to anticipate a point which I am fairly sure will be raised by hon. Members opposite—the idea which I know has been put forward both by the Press and television in recent days, that if there was a complete ban on processions for a lengthy period then this would have a defusing effect on the current tension. I do not think that there is any validity in that argument. For very many years parades at certain specified times of the year have been a traditional feature of Ulster life.
These parades have almost without exception passed off without any untoward incident. I feel, therefore, that this Easter could have been no exception

had certain elements not decided to exploit the occasion for fermenting trouble—for turning the screw of tension a little tighter. Where there is a determination to cause trouble, an excuse can easily be found and to ban parades would be merely an opiate of illusion.
Now I turn to the Army's activities in Northern Ireland. It would be easy to comment adversely on the conduct on certain occasions of some of the soldiers in Belfast in the months since last August. It would be easy to criticise some of the seemingly strange negotiating procedures which were adopted particularly in No-go land in Belfast, but whatever the recrimination in which one could indulge that does not obscure two facts of which we must never lose sight—we must focus attention on the present and the future and not on the past and, over-riding all else, we must realise and acknowledge that the presence of the Army has prevented a possible holocaust for which we must be and are deeply grateful.
The Army units in Ulster have found themselves in a very unenviable situation for which they could not have been expected to be fully prepared. Internal security is not a rôle normally associated with the Army. It is of paramount importance that the Army be seen to be utterly impartial. Visible impartiality is absolutely vital in the present mood in Ulster and I was glad that last night on television the G.O.C. stated that good sense will prevail only if the Army is very strong on the ground and shows an absolute determination to keep the peace. I trust that the G.O.C. will have no hesitation in clothing his words with action should the occasion warrant which every hon. Member most earnestly prays that the occasion would not arise.
I trust that the kid-glove approach is now something of the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Likewise, I believe that the attitude of mind which can be summarised by, "If you do not like us, we will leave", an attitude which gained momentum last night with the G.O.C.'s statement again on television that the Army "may not stay long enough or be allowed to stay long enough", must be replaced.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am rather alarmed by the hon. Gentleman's statement that we should be rid of the kid-glove approach. Would he applaud


the recent words of His Lordship the Bishop of Down and Connor, the Right Rev. William Philbin, who appealed to both sides of this conflict for better behaviour all round?

Mr. Pounder: Of course I would. I think that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has misunderstood me. I am referring to the kid-glove approach only in the context of the Army. If I did not make that clear, I hope that I have made it clear now.
I was referring to the attitude reflected in the statement last night by the G.O.C. that the Army may not stay long enough, or be allowed to stay long enough, and I suggest that this must be replaced in this debate by a clear-cut and unequivocal commitment that the Army will stay in sufficient strength for as long as may be required. Anything else is an open encouragement to extremists to increase the pressure.
The Army is not in Ulster on a grace and favour basis. It is there because Ulster is part of the United Kingdom and it is operating in an emergency situation. The Army—of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—should be doing its utmost to restore peaceful conditions. Let there be an immediate rebuttal of the kind of dark hint which can fairly be stated as having been contained in General Freeland's statement last right.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I fancy that the hon. Gentleman wrote that piece of his speech before Question Time today. Was he here a Question Time?

Mr. Pounder: No.

Mr. Callaghan: I thought not. I suggest that he might choose to adjust what he has to say, which will be fully reported, in the light of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, in response to a question from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, gave an explicit assurance that troops will stay there in sufficient numbers as long as they are required to do the job.

Mr. Pounder: I am indebted to the Home Secretary for his assurance. I was on the interview floor, writing that

passage of my speech at about ten minutes to three. I am indebted to him for clarifying the point in clear and unmistakable language.
Quite apart from the violence, the effect on the economy of Northern Ireland of recent events is bound to be adverse and the full impact will not be felt for some years. Suffice it to say that the effect on the developing tourist trade, which is worth nearly £30 million annually to the economy, has undoubtedly been severe. This is nothing short of tragic. There is likewise the effect of recent events, and the publicity which has flowed from them, on industrial development, which is bound also to be adverse. Again, I do not think that the impact will be felt for some time.
Another casualty has been community relations, which were improving and which undoubtedly have received a substantial setback during recent months. By whatever yardstick of measurement, therefore, which one uses, be it economic, social, community, or anything else, there is no doubt that a very dear price has been paid in Ulster for the events of recent months.
It is noteworthy that in today's Daily Telegraph, Professor Sidney Hook, Professor of Philosophy at New York University, is quoted as saying:
Whoever anticipates that violence will strengthen the influence of moderates and expedite reform is taking a foolish risk, a criminally irresponsible risk… It narrows the options, destroys the centre and polarises the community into extremes.
A great deal has been said in this House and written in the Press about the fears of the minority in Northern Ireland, but, make no mistake about it, the Protestant majority also has genuine fears which must be realised and understood, For the past 50 years, both communities have shared in the economic progress which has been made—a progress which, in my view, would not have been made if Northern Ireland had been part of the Republic of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."] It is hard economic fact. It is not a belief which can be destroyed by propaganda.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: In Northern Ireland, the average wage is £120 less per annum than in the worst region of any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pounder: I take the hon. Gentleman's point slightly differently and use percentages which may work out at the same figure, which is 20 per cent.
Wage levels are about 20 per cent. lower in Ulster than on this side of the water, but so is the cost of living, broadly speaking, bearing in mind the very high number of low-rent tenancies. It is generally accepted that, while wage levels are lower by 20 per cent., so is the cost of living—and I cite as authority for this statement information given to me by the last Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in this House.
The reaction a moment or two ago when I made the point about the developing economy and the participation in it of all citizens showed a less than unanimous approval, but those who are so ready to jump on the bandwaggon of criticism should study the facts more closely before jumping to their erroneous conclusions.
In the final analysis, it is the people of Northern Ireland themselves who must determine their own destiny. Any solution which is forced upon them will be vigorously resisted. This is one of the facts of life in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in Ireland as a whole. But, having said that, I do not think that this invalidates the right, to which I feel the Northern Ireland Government are entitled, to have more than the somewhat half-hearted support which has on occasions emanated from this House.
The Northern Ireland Government's legislative programme has had the approval of the Government at Westminster. Surely it is not unreasonable to express the feeling—as I do, because I feel it so deeply—that the Northern Ireland Government are entitled to very much fuller backing from the House than they have perhaps received even in the recent past.
I am not seeking either now, or, I hope, at any stage of the debate, to inflame passions, but some of the unwarranted references made at Question Time recently in this House to the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland and, therefore, to the Northern Ireland Government, have been very unhelpful. Party politics is fine in its proper context, but the present situation in Northern Ireland is not the time for some of the comments

which have been made across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: In fairness to members of the Labour and Liberal Party in this House, would not the hon. Gentleman confirm that it was not from either of these two quarters that Captain O'Neill was dismissed?

Mr. Pounder: I do not think that that is a relevant point, because if the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) had allowed me to go on he would have learnt something from the next sentence of my speech.
The legislative programme of the Northern Ireland Government in the winter of 1968–69, which was in the time of Captain O'Neill, is now all on the Statute Book at Stormont. The policies of Captain O'Neill are the policies of the Northern Ireland Government of today and not just of yesterday, when he was in charge. Therefore, the Northern Ireland Government have done by means of legislation all that could reasonably be expected of any Government.
There is, however, a limit to what legislation can do. There must be good will in the community for legislation truly to be implemented and that good will at present is a precious commodity in Northern Ireland. It certainly is not assisted by the sort of reported comment which appeared in the Press over Easter, apparently made by Mr. John Hume, Stormont Member for the Foyle Division of Londonderry, when he referred to the flying of the Union Jack, the flag of the United Kingdom, on a police station in Londonderry as a provocative act.
We hear a great deal about British standards in Ulster—economic prosperity, social justice, etc. I, as a Unionist, believe in those standards. But British standards also mean acceptance of the flag and constitution of the United Kingdom, and herein lies a factor which many of the vociferous members of the minority in Northern Ireland refuse to accept.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: I point out one single fact to the hon. Gentleman. There are particular days on which the Union Jack is flown in Great Britain. On Easter Day, the Union Jack is not flown in any other part of the


United Kingdom than Northern Ireland. That is what was taken as a provocation by people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pounder: As far as I know there is no rule which determines on which day a flag shall or shall not be flown on public buildings in the United Kingdom. There really can be no halfway house. Either there are British standards right across the board, with everything that that means, or else the talk of British standards is meaningless.
At this critical moment in Ulster's history some appear to be seeking to tear down the very foundations of all the effort and enterprise that has gone into building up that country over the past 50 years. The preservation of Northern Ireland, its very existence, depends upon the isolation of violence and the restoration of law and order on the streets of Northern Ireland.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had hoped that this debate would take place with the intention of relieving a potentially very dangerous situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we were told so in the corridors. But after hearing the highly provocative speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) I fear this may not be so.
I hope to point out quite a few inaccuracies made by the hon. Member. First, the note on which he finished, where he said that it was regarded as a provocation in certain parts of Northern Ireland for the Union Jack to be flown. That is so. I quite agree with it. But the Union Jack in Northern Ireland is not the flag of the United Kingdom; it is the party political rag of the hon. Gentleman's party. That is why there is such distaste against the flag being flown.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take a point of order, but I hope that the House will pursue this matter calmly.

Mr. Maginnis: Is it correct for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to refer to the flag of the United Kingdom as "a party rag"?

Mr. Speaker: Nothing out of order has happened at the moment. There may be

something of which the hon. Gentleman disapproves. That is not unusual in a free assembly.

Mr. Fitt: Perhaps hon. Members opposite have a twinge of conscience about it, because they know in their heart of hearts that what I have said is true. The Union Jack in Northern Ireland is not the flag of the United Kingdom, but it has been dragged in the gutter and sullied by Unionist party politics.
This debate is ostensibly about the present situation in Ulster, what happened over the Easter period, and the deterioration in the situation. I submit that we cannot discuss happenings over the past week in isolation from Ireland's past troubled history. It would be generally conceded—and this is no reflection on the present Government, for whom I have the greatest admiration—that over four or five centuries of Irish history the British Government have divided the Irish people, and that those divisions have been carried out at the point of a gun. Now, in 1970, we are being told that they should unite, again at the point of a gun.
Is it any wonder that we have in Northern Ireland today a confused, frustrated, bewildered and, particularly, a fearful community, because of the past actions of successive British Governments that so successfully divided the Irish people and eventually divided the Irish nation? That is why there is so much confusion in Ireland today and why the troubles in Northern Ireland last week had their basis in what happened in past centuries.
Members of the Unionist Party would try to claim no responsibility for the present situation in Northern Ireland. They have said their policies have brought about progress, economic development, that the whole community in Northern Ireland has enjoyed the economic development that has taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 20 to 30 years. Does the hon. Member for Belfast, South or any other hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House really believe this?
Has Derry, with a 25 per cent. unemployment figure, has Strabane, with a 29 per cent., has Newry with 17 per cent., and has Ballymurphy—the estate that caused such trouble last week and where


a recent poll revealed that 47 per cent. of the male persons were unemployed—have any of them shared in the economic development in Northern Ireland? These are the reasons why there is such discontent.
I believe that the hon Member for Belfast, South should be honest and should tell the House. Unless this House fully understands, unless the British people fully understand and, particularly from my point of view, unless the trade union movement and the British working class fully understand, what is happening in Ireland, there can be no solution to the present problems.
Limited as we may be by the three hours of this debate, I hope that at its conclusion there will be a further realisation of what has brought about the present tensions in Northern Ireland. Over the Easter period I was hopeful that there would be no further escalation of violence in Northern Ireland. A series of marches took place in Northern Ireland over the Easter period which were deliberately intended and calculated to inflame sectarian passions.
All over Northern Ireland Orange parades were taking place. It takes an Irish man to understand this; it takes someone born and bred in the hatred and bigotry that has existed in that country to understand the violent passions that can be aroused by these very provocative parades. In the City of Belfast, on the Ballymurphy estate, one can quite well imagine the great discontent that exists in the males and youths of that estate. Twenty yards from that estate, on the other side of the road, the Springfield Road, there is another estate, much more affluent. It happens, and I regret to say this, that the majority of people living in that more affluent estate is non-Catholic. There is employment there. Naturally, there is a feeling of frustration that one side of the road has been victimised and the other side of the road is being given favours and privileges from the Unionist Government. This is a fact of life.
When it was known that the Orange parade would traverse the Springfield Road which bisected the two estates, the member who represents that constituency at Stormont, the Peace Committees, both Protestants and Catholics, made representations to the Army commander in the

area and to the police not to let this particular parade take place because the was a danger it would bring about violence. Whether it was the Stormont Government, whether it was General Freeland, whether it was the police authorities or not, a disastrous decision was taken to let that parade continue. When the parade was passing, many insults were hurled at the Catholic Church; many insults were hurled at the residents of the Ballymurphy Estate; many derogatory things were said—and I should make it clear, because this did incense the Catholic people—about the blessed Virgin Mary.
An Englishman, a Welshman or a Scotsman may not understand it, but in Northern Ireland, where this has been heaped upon us generation after generation, it is bound to cause trouble. These boys retaliated in the only way they knew; they lifted the first stone or missile that was available and threw it at their tormentors. Who is to say they should not have done that? What would any human being in their place say if he were being tormented to such an extent? He must retaliate; it is human nature.
Then the Unionist mob on the other side of the Army cordon joined in. I am not condemning every single individual who took part in that Orange parade, for I am sure that there were many decent people taking part and who had every right to take part in that demonstration. I am not condemning the people on the other side of the road, the people in the New Barnsley Estate; many of them were there to watch the parade come hack. But there were people of both sides there who wanted trouble. The stones began to fly; the windows of two houses were broken; two windows were broken on the Ballymurphy side of the road, and immediately the Army moved in. The Army then over-reacted and took strong action against the young boys on the Ballymurphy side of the confrontation.
It has been said—The Times article said it again today—that there were Republicans on the Ballymurphy side in this confrontation. I do not deny that. I know many Republicans who live on the Ballymurphy estate. I got them their houses there. I made representations on their behalf. Republicans have to have somewhere to live in Northern Ireland.


They are men who cling tenaciously to the understandable ideal, particularly in view of past repression by the Unionist Party, of a united Ireland.
But once the Army over-reacted the seeds were sown for a violent confrontation. I have condemned what happened. Those young boys should not have involved themselves in a confrontation with the British Army. Many Republicans in that estate were actively seen to be doing their best to prevent that confrontation. They realised that no one could win—certainly not the oppressed people of Ballymurphy.

Mr. Delargy: Would my hon. Friend make it clear to the House, because there may be some confusion about this, that when he speaks about Republicans he is not necessarily speaking about I.R.A. men, but merely about men who believe in a republic, who have nothing whatever to do with the I.R.A.?

Mr. Fitt: Exactly. This is one point which should be clarified for the benefit of those who cannot know.
The Unionist party has at all times—many other less experienced journalists have written in this vein—talked as if every Republican is an I.R.A. man, armed with a revolver, who wants to shoot British soldiers in the back. This is completely untrue. There are people in Ireland who legitimately want to see the unification of that country, and I am one of them. I have no hesitation in saying that. I have never said anything else since I entered the House. I hope that I will live to see the day when my country is united from Fermanagh to Cork.
I know that I have the support in saying that of hon. Members on this side, and on the other side, and of the mass of people who believe in justice. It has been found——

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose——

Mr. Fitt: The hon. and learned Gentleman can make a speech later. I gladly leave it to my capable hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to reply to any remarks that he may make.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The hon. Member said, I think that, in the Ballymurphy estate, there was a number of Republicans. He said this in reply to his hon. Friend. Would he confirm that there is also a number of I.R.A. men in the Ballymurphy estate?

Mr. Fitt: I will confirm no such thing. I believe that that it a non-truth. I do not believe that there are I.R.A. men living in the Ballymurphy estate. The hon. and learned Member has certainly no proof for that allegation, and unless he has proof he should withdraw it.
I return to the events of the last week. Then the Royal Scots Regiment was brought in to deal with the fighting in the Ballymurphy estate. I must explain this not only to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to many of my most sincere hon. Friends. One, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), first came to Northern Ireland soon after my election to see what was happening. The members of the Royal Scots Regiment cannot all be Rangers supporters. They cannot all be anti-Catholic bigots.
Over a period of years, particularly since the inception of the Northern Ireland State, every year on 12th July the Orange lodges in Northern Ireland invite 20 or 30 Orange bands to come to Northern Ireland from Scotland. It is generally agreed that these are the most provocative bands to take part in the 12th of July procession. Many Orange parades and many of the more respectable lodges would have nothing to do with that type of band. Every Catholic church on the route of the marches on the 12th of July is violently attacked with stones, and insults are hurled at the people.
It is now recognised that churches along the processional route should be closed on that date because of the activities Scottish bands——

Sir knox Cunningham: That is quite untrue!

Mr. Fitt: It may be said that the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland should not react as they do, that they should not be provoked by these Scottish bands, but this is only human nature. In the minds of many Catholics in Northern Ireland it is accepted that the Scottish people who come there on the 12th, the


Scottish members of the Royal Scots Regiment, are in alliance with some of the more extreme unionists.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Since my hon. Friend is now mentioning the Scottish bands going over, will he take it from me that they represent only a tiny minority of the Scottish people, and that they have no kind of support, certainly, in the constituency which I represent?

Mr. Fitt: I am glad that my hon. Friend has said that, and I am sure that it will be taken as it was meant by the people who live in the Ballymurphy estate.
At least it was undiplomatic to have that regiment there at that time. There are many other areas in Northern Ireland where it would have been less offensive. Again, the riots took place. They went on on two different nights and many people in Northern Ireland condemned the actions of those youths. They have been roundly condemned by the Cardinal Primate and the Bishop. I myself condemned them forcibly. Other leaders in Northern Ireland have condemned what happened. It should never have happened, because it was senseless violence which could achieve nothing. Violence will be no solution to the problems besetting Northern Ireland. But the violence which erupted has been brought about by what has happened under Unionism over the last 50 years.
What has brought about the debate is a series of explosions, particularly over the past week and, indeed, over two years. The tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South and of the article in The Times today suggests that these explosions are the handiwork of the I.R.A., a subversive organisation intent on causing explosions. But that is not so and there is no one here or anywhere else who can point the finger of accusation at the I.R.A. But what we do know is that the explosions early in 1969, in March and April, were the work of the illegal Ulster Volunteer Force, an extreme Right-wing Unionist organisation with which, to my mind—although he has publicly said that he had nothing to do with it—the Rev. Ian Paisley has a close connection.
It would be generally accepted, even by those hon. Members opposite from

Northern Ireland who are opposed to me, that those explosions were caused with the intention of bringing about the downfall of the Northern Ireland Government and particularly of Captain O'Neill.

Miss Devlin: Perhaps my hon. Friend will also recall, as will other hon. Members, on that occasion, in fact on 22nd April last year, one finds that two columns in HANSARD were spent by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in proving that it was the I.R.A. who were responsible, and that he invited my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to send six C.I.D. officers to Northern Ireland to substantiate his claim. Later, six people known to be supporters of the Rev. Ian Paisley appeared in court as a result of investigations.

Mr. Fitt: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that incident.

Mr. John Biffen: Further to that point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), would the hon. Gentleman say whether or not those who were brought before the courts on that occasion were found guilty?

Mr. Fitt: That is one of the reasons why we have such discontent and tension in Northern Ireland now. They were brought before the courts and acquitted, but everyone in Northern Ireland knows how juries are intimidated and will never convict—[Interruption.] I do not want to cause dissension, but——

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is letting himself down. He has always been frightened of being described as a moderate, which has happened lately, and now he is making an extreme speech. Is he aware that he should withdraw that reflection on the courts, particularly since, first, he should not have made it, and, secondly, because—he knows this well; he knows it from talking to barristers in Northern Ireland—nobody on either side of the political fence believes that there was enough evidence to convict any of those people.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, as well as everybody in


Northern Ireland, are aware that those who were acquitted were, in fact, guilty. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order.

Mr. Fitt: They were acquitted. One of their colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—was charged, convicted, and received a sentence of 12 years——

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. While having no sympathy with any of the offences to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, are we to reach a stage in this House when an hon. Member can, under the guise of privilege, make comments about people who have been acquitted unanimously by a jury? Is that to be allowed without any protection from the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for his own statements.

Mr. Fitt: I am quite willing to shoulder that responsibility.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Further to my point of order. Are you suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman can say anything in this Chamber, to take away the character of any man, which he would clearly not repeat beyond the doors of this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not the custom of the Chair to rule on hypothetical situations—[Interruption.]—and so far nothing has been out of order.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Fitt: I conclude this portion of my remarks by adding that one man was convicted and received a sentence of 12 years, having admitted to the court that he was a member of the U.D.F. and that he had associations with others involved in the explosions which brought about the downfall of Captain O'Neill, the Prime Minister of the time.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. I hope that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a serious question. Surely the Chair must give some protection when, a court of law having given a complete acquittal to

people who stood trial, they are then attacked and smeared in this House. Surely the Chair must, and does on other occasions, give protection to people outside. Is not this one of the occasions when it is clear that they should be given protection? I ask you to rule accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is guided by the rules of procedure and so far nothing that has been said is out of order.

Mr. John Ryan: Further to that point of order. Is not there a direct parallel here with the situation which arose in the House only a few months ago, when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) made allegations about a trade union official in the Midlands and his activities, which were subsequently disproved in court but which the hon. Gentleman has never retracted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Fitt: I do not want to indulge in any type of argument with the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), for whom I do not have a high regard from the point of view of his political intelligence or otherwise. He is commonly known in Northern Ireland as "the Westminster correspondent of the Paisley Telegraph". [Interruption.] Many of my hon. Friends want to take part in this debate and I will leave that matter there.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. I think that there are many fair-minded hon. Gentlemen opposite who will also regard this situation as intolerable. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one to make an attack on somebody who has been acquitted in the courts in any other country, alleging his guilt; that is, except in this country?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One at a time, please. I have already indicated to hon. Members that nothing that has been said so far is out of order.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Are there no means by which the House can protect itself from this concerted attempt by a series of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent the free flow of this debate?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: And to protect free speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Earlier Mr. Speaker said that this was a short debate. There have been numerous interruptions and I remind the House that interruptions lengthen speeches.

Mr. Fitt: I said that I had left the matter. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) knows—I am sure he agrees in his conscience; perhaps he cannot agree in this House or at other political platforms because of the effect that that would have on the electorate in Northern Ireland—that what I have said is true.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that I condemn anybody who is proved to have committed any outrage of this kind. I am as anxious as he to see that such persons are brought to justice. However, I am not prepared in this House to smear somebody after he has been acquitted. That is the point I have been making.

Mr. Fitt: I will leave the decision on what I have said to the community in Northern Ireland, and I mean both sides of the political line. I am certain that I shall have their support.
One of the most disastrous happenings in Northern Ireland during recent days has undoubtedly been the very provocative and arrogant attitude of General Freeland, both on television and at a Press conference in Northern Ireland. That, above and beyond all other issues, has caused such tension in Northern Ireland that standing here today I am in the throes of despair, for I believe that his speech can do nothing but further exacerbate the tensions in Northern Ireland.
What did General Freeland say and how did he say it? This is most important. He said that the British Army would shoot to kill persons involved in riotous situations. I know that the spokesman for hon. Gentlemen opposite on this

issue has family connections with Irish history and has a close involvement in this matter. He must know enough of the Irish character to recognise that we will take that sort of dictation from no one.
Even the Protestant community, those who support Paisley—those on the minority side—are all incensed by General Freeland's attitude. Why he was allowed to say what he said on television is beyond my comprehension. I believe that generals should be seen and not heard. If anything, a political statement should have been made by a spokesman for either the Government or the Opposition.
We in Northern Ireland are now in an impossible position, because General Freeland's words have been taken as a direct threat not to the minority or to the rioters in Ballymurphy or the Shankill Road, where lives have already been lost, to use the big stick and to beat people into the ground. How foolish could he have been? It will be recognised that that very attitude was adopted in Ireland centuries ago, with very little success.
In his original comments, on television and at the Press conference, General Freeland said, "We have superior fire power". How can those words be interpreted other than as a direct threat to the people of Northern Ireland? I have asked and I repeat the question: has General Freeland never heard of Vietnam, where the Americans have had superior fire power and have used it, but with very little success?
There is also the question of Rhodesia. Under successive Governments, this House has had superior fire power in Kenya, Malaya and other parts of the world, but eventually we had to arrive at a political settlement in conformity with the needs of the people in those areas. I am not criticising this Government, but they should realise that those remarks by General Freeland can cause untold trouble.
I was on the telephone incessantly to the Home Secretary last August asking that British troops should be brought into Northern Ireland to defend the minority from vicious attacks by the majority at that time. I pleaded with my right hon. Friend to send troops into the Ardoyne and Hooker Street area of Belfast. It


would have been destroyed with consequent great loss of life but for the presence of British troops. I applaud the Army for what it did then. It was necessary for it to be there to protect life and limb.
I realise the frustrations which now beset the British Army in Northern Ireland. It is doing an unusual job, it is fulfilling an unusual rÔle and the soldiers do not want to be there, but I recognise that it is very necessary to have them there at present. It would be absolutely senseless for anyone in this House or elsewhere to say that the British Army should be withdrawn from Northern Ireland tomorrow. If it were withdrawn, there would be absolute massacre.
I am given a problem. In this position what are the answers? I freely admit that I have not got the answers. I despair for the future in Northern Ireland. I was perturbed over the past week to hear that Protestants and Catholics were fighting each other for the occupation of corporation dwellings. That should never happen, but it was exaggerated out of all proportion by Ian Paisley in an attempt to help his political prospects in the election. Two windows were broken on the Barnsley Estate and he was able to make propaganda out of this. He got the television cameras and hired buses to bring a lot of young "Teddies" in to have this highlighted as an example of how the Protestants were being attacked by Catholics on the other side of the road. It was completely untrue.
Those windows should not have been broken. It may have been that they were broken accidently by the throwing of stones, but it should not have been done deliberately. Catholics and Protestants, not only in my constituency but all over Ireland, will have to learn to live together and they cannot be made to do that at the point of a gun.
This Government, far and away more than any Government in my memory or in the history I have read, have shown concern for Northern Ireland's problems. For my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary there is a great fund of good will in Northern Ireland. He did a tremendous and difficult job last August, September and October, when violence in Northern Ireland was at its height. That
job has not yet been completed. A lot more hard work will have to be done in resolving the difficulties which beset Northern Ireland
This Government should insist that the Northern Ireland Government should implement the reforms now on the Statute Book and which followed the confrontation of last August. They should bring into immediate operation the central housing authority. They should have a reform of local government so that justice will not only be a promise but will be seen to be done. There is a fear in Northern Ireland that if, unfortunately, this Government were to be defeated at the next General Election, and a Tory Government were elected, the new Government would not pressurise the Unionist Party.
That is the feeling among the minority in Northern Ireland. I hope that the spokesman for the Opposition will discourage it. The fear is that hon. Members opposite have so much in common with the Unionist Party that they would not be so forceful as are this Government in demanding full social justice and freedom for every citizen in Northern Ireland.
It may be that future generations will regard this short debate as one of the most important debates on Northern Ireland which has ever taken place in this House. I believe that it is not too late, but it is very nearly the eleventh hour. I ask the Home Secretary again to go to Northern Ireland, if necessary, to let the people there see that this Government still have the will to bring about reforms in Northern Ireland. The Government should let them know that they have not forgotten what happened in August, September and October last year and that they are not only concerned with the result of the next General Election in the United Kingdom but with the freedom and social justice of everyone in Northern Ireland.
I freely admit that I have not got all the answers. There is a very dangerous situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Home Secretary in whatever steps he takes to de-escalate that very dangerous situation.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: If anyone ever had any lingering doubts


as to the bitterness, hatred, passions and complexities in Northern Ireland, any such doubts would have been dispelled by attending this debate. I do not wish to say anything which will raise the temperature in Northern Ireland, or in this House. I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and that we have broken the convention that this House is powerless to discuss the affairs of part of the United Kingdom. That obviously is a dead letter. It could not have been proved more convincingly than by the fact that it was an Ulster Unionist who was successful in initiating this debate.
In passing, I could not quite understand the fury with which the reference to the Union Jack was received by hon. Members in the Opposition. The Union Jack is regularly used as a tablecloth at many Conservative meetings; it is also used as a rosette. There is obviously no simple explanation for what is occurring at the moment in Northern Ireland. One thing is quite clear—that violence begets violence. What is frightening is a growing mood of violence in Northern Ireland. That mood will not be dispelled merely by the introduction of reforms however vitally important they may be.
We have to ask ourselves how we can dispel this mood of violence and try to get good communal relations. I do not mind from what quarter the violence emanates, it is totally destructive of any attempt to get co-operation between people of different religions. I would say to the majority group that perhaps they can play a much greater part in this contribution because they not only predominate but they are, so to speak, the establishment. It is not encouraging to see the attempts by people like Captain O'Neill and Major Chichester-Clark to bring in long overdue reforms and to see the continual shift to the Right, albeit of a fringe but none the less of a significant minority, in the Unionist Party.
When the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said, let us see that the Stormont Government get support and backing for these reforms, I wholly agreed, but charity also begins at home within the Ulster Unionist Party. When one sees people like Mr. Richard Ferguson going out of public life and

the sort of person adopted as prospective candidate to take his place with the lip service which is paid to Mr. Paisley and the growing influence and lack of dissociation from what Mr. Paisley is saying on many occasions, that does not help to dispel the view that there is a move to the Right on the one hand which in my view will be matched by a move towards extremism on the other. Therefore, there is a very great contribution that the Unionist Party can make in Northern Ireland.
I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there is no question but that British troops will remain in Northern Ireland for so long as they are necessary. We must face the fact that they may be necessary for very many years. We shall probably not get a communal peace such as we wish to see until the reforms have been implemented and people have been able to live in conditions of reform with the full protection of the British Army. This may be five years, it may be 10. I do not know, but it will be a very long period.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Thorpe: I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister did. I am saying that it may have to be five to 10 years. Even though I am not Prime Minister I am entitled to my own view, and I have just expressed it. On assessments of time, it is perhaps better that the Prime Minister is not too prophetic.
Therefore, is the Home Secretary satisfied that we have done all we can to see that the troops have the best possible conditions in Northern Ireland? I know that there have been considerable improvements, but we want to see that the very best is done.
The second thing I would like to ask him is not merely about numbers—the actual strength of our forces—but availability. It is very important that troops should be available not only when there are known, declared, possible potentially provocative political marches, but on occasions when there will be a great collection of people, such as a football match. The riots at Cliftonville might have been minimised had troops been available. Therefore, availability is just as important as numbers.
I regretfully accept that political marches are part of the mythology of Northern Ireland, and it may well be that in the long run they are the best way of allowing people to let off steam. As long as steam is all they let off, there will be very few complaints. But obviously the routes must be clearly defined and most rigorously adhered to. There can be nothing more provocative than one particular demonstration, one particular march, associated with one particular set of religious beliefs, going into an area predominantly populated by people associated with another.
I pay great tribute to what the British troops are doing. It is a pretty sobering experience to see British troops with floodlights and sub-machine guns on the roofs of buildings, stopping British citizens from attacking each other. I shall not go into the wider discussion about the Government's position on the Geneva Protocol, but I hope that we shall hear less and less about the use of CS gas in controlling crowds. It is psychologically very bad for troops to find themselves in the position of using it. The Home Secretary says that CS gas is preferable to bullets. Certainly: logically, bullets are preferable to tanks firing guns of even larger calibre, and so one can go on act infinitum. For psychological reasons, the use of the gas must be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If we must increase the number of troops to avoid its use, we should do so.
I must also confess that I share the view that a general is put in a very difficult position if he is expected to be the mouthpiece, the propagandist, the politician. General Freeland has been put into a very difficult position, and he should be relieved of that particular duty. I hope that the Home Secretary will say how these matters are to be dealt with in future. I like to see these matters in the hands of civilians, preferably civilians who have been elected.
I should like to refer briefly to Ballymurphy. Obviously, the incidence of unemployment is very high, which is a very important factor. But I notice that the Premier of Northern Ireland mentioned the extraordinarily large number of young children that had taken part in

the demonstration, and appealed to parents to keep their children at home. It is also right to say that in that area there are no facilities for children. There are no playgrounds, and the only place for them to play is in the streets. This may sound a minor detail, but it is the sort of social issue by which we can direct people into more peaceful channels.
I also believe that we shall never have moderation in politics in Northern Ireland until we revert to the electoral system which was in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which has taken the religious bitterness out of politics in the Republic.

Mr. Henry Clark: Nonsense.

Mr. Thorpe: It is a system which enabled a Protestant to be the first President of the Republic. I do not believe that the equivalent would happen in Northern Ireland. I know that the Home Secretary has been kind enough to study certain submissions made to him. I think that the cross-voting, particularly in local government, for the very short period during which that electoral system was in operation showed that Catholic would vote for Protestant and Protestant for Catholic. That is one of the reasons why in so many constitutions which this country has set up in colonial territories where we have wished to see that minorities were properly represented, and where there was not a polarisation on religious or ethnic grounds, we were very careful to see that the present electoral system in this country was not exported.

Mr. Henry Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has made a point that the first President of the Republic of Ireland happened to be a Protestant. He also happened to be the founder of the Gaelic League. As the President is elected on direct voting and not in the same way as the Dail is elected, there is no validity in the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Rose: What about the Deputy Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Thorpe: If I may intervene in this intervention on the intervention, I would say with great respect to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) that he is not correct. I shall be happy


to send him chapter and verse, and will do so.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thorpe: Certainly not to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Are you afraid?

Mr. Thorpe: I am very much afraid of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has done and could still do by his voice being heard in Northern Ireland. There is one Member to whom I would not give way, and it is the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not need a poor man's Paisley in this House.

Sir Knox Cunningham: What about bombing Rhodesia?

Mr. Thorpe: The House has seen some of the tactics of extremism. They are perhaps more easily contained in this House than in Northern Ireland.
There will be a very long, hard slog in Northern Ireland, in which British troops will bear the brunt for many years to come. In that they will have the support of this House. In the implementation of the urgently-needed reforms, the Government at Stormont, whatever its complexion, will have the support of this House. Whoever indulges in violence and whoever stirs up bitterness will, I hope, be condemned in this House, whether they are on the extreme Right or the extreme Left. If we can agree upon that, at least we have agreed upon something.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I have a great respect politically and a very great personal regard for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who made such a sincere speech. I was very surprised to find myself again at loggerheads with him when he mentioned the rôle of the Commander-in-Chief in Northern Ireland. I agree with him and others who have said that it is a great mistake to have a general in a political rôle if it can be avoided. Anyone who saw him on television the other night, far from getting the impression that my hon. Friend got, would see that here was a most kindly gentleman, a man who would do no harm to anyone if it could be avoided, a man who nevertheless was determined to do

his duty in the position in which he found himself.
It is that position with which I find myself at loggerheads—that a man like that and troops such as those under him should be put into that position. Not that I want them removed, not that I think that they should not have been sent. They should have been sent and they are still necessary. Nevertheless, they find themselves in an impossible position. Before long, as I said in this House and in newspaper articles a year ago, we are bound to have in Northern Ireland a situation where everyone is shooting something or other at our troops. That is the position I want to avoid at all costs. I do not see any way of avoiding it except by asking the world to hold the ring.
I know that this is not a popular cry, but what will happen if we do not have the world holding the ring? We will be there for years and years, being shot at. What will the mums and dads of the troops say when they find their sons being shot at and being told that they must not shoot back? In Ireland, if someone wants to obtain sympathy he must shoot at authority, or at least it is a very good way of gaining sympathy. Unless authority wishes to forfeit whatever sympathy it has, it must not shoot back. I hope that we will not perpetuate a situation in which British troops are asked to be the mother-in-law of Northern Ireland.
A person does not go to his mother-in-law and ask her to settle his disputes, but that is apparently what is expected of our troops. Sooner or later our troops will be unable to contain the situation in Northern Ireland, when they are being shot at from all sides and very likely from the Unionist side. After all, the Unionists have not shown very great loyalty in the past in Irish affairs. From all sides there is this danger of massive blood and fire on an unprecedented scale. It seems too tragic to contemplate.
What can we do? We are there holding the ring as best we can for the moment, and we must continue to do so. But that is no long-term policy. There are some sincere people who feel that maybe there is no solution to the problem, but I am not prepared to accept that. I think that I can see a way ahead, a means whereby a solution might be found.


It will not be tomorrow, it might easily be in two generations' time, if we are lucky. The only way we can do it is not by having British troops in command—for British troops will never pacify Ireland and we ought to have learned the lesson of history by now—but by having the world in.
We will be willing to help, not to run away but to contribute to the world authority. The real trouble which I foresee in Northern Ireland is that there will be international complications because Dublin will not be able, much though she wishes to do so, to stand on one side, and have it said that she is allowing her own people in the north to be massacred. Hence the international complications. Even though it is unpopular, I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has done a marvellous job in Northern Ireland and I have no doubt will continue to do so, will bear in mind that in the long-term there is no British solution. It must be a world solution.
It has been suggested by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, and it is a serious suggestion, it is a good suggestion, to be pursued. If we really get world opinion interested in this question there is some hope for the future, for establishing peace.

Mr. Peter Mahon: There is a lot of wisdom in what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that any Government can overlook the fact that there are 4 million Christian people in Ireland, Irish people even though they are citizens of this country. I have not give up hope that eventually, however long it takes, Ireland can, thanks to political wisdom and tolerance, become united. It is disunited now and if we are to take into consideration the long-term effects——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interventions should be short.

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not overlook the fact that there are millions of Irish people who want to see peace in Ireland. I believe that many of them are abroad and that is relevant to the suggestion I have been making. I said that I thought I saw a solution ahead, with the possibility of peace for Ireland ultimately. But it must

be within a world framework, not a United Kingdom framework. I know that many people would be ashamed to think it necessary to call in the world, "these foreigners", to help to pacify British people. Unfortunately this is the situation.
Before the world British people are being seen to be incapable of solving their own problem. We have tried for many hundreds of years to do so inside the British Isles and, alas, we have failed. Surely we can learn the lesson and try now to find a world solution which may ultimately bring peace lo Ireland.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am well aware that many of my hon. Friends representing Northern Ireland constituencies wish to take part in this debate. Nevertheless, I hope that they will not begrudge a few minutes for those who represent constituencies in Great Britain.
The House is debating something which is happening in the United Kingdom, and what happens in one part of the United Kingdom is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom and to this United Kingdom Parliament. It would be the worst thing for the interests which my hon. Friends have at heart and for the interests of all, without exception, if Northern Ireland were to be regarded as a special subject apart, a kind of preserve in which only Irish Members took part and in which only Irish Members took a serious interest. I agree in this with the Leader of the Liberal Party, that at any rate what has happened in the last few months has made us realise a United Kingdom responsibility in this House.
In those last few months it has become clear, as was not clear at the outset six or nine months ago, that two distinct and separate sources and kinds of violence are at work in Northern Ireland. True, these two kinds inter-breed and intermingle, but it is right and necessary that they should be seen apart; and this has been pointed to in recent statements both by General Freeland and by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence.
One of those sources of violence is violence for violence sake, a part of


that more and more recognisable trend throughout the world towards violence for the sake of destruction, violence not to replace one order or set of institutions by another, but to tear down without replacing and without the intention to replace. This type, which we have seen with increasing clearness in Northern Ireland, has inter-married with violence in support of the aspiration that the six counties of Northern Ireland might become part of the Republic of Ireland.
Naturally, the attention of the House in a debate like this is largely centred upon what is being done from day to day and from week to week to give security and reassurance, as far as possible, to our fellow citizens who are under actual threat to life and property in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I apprehend that the greatest thing which the House can do and which we can achieve by debate relates to a more distance future; for surely the causes, and consequently, if they be available, the cures, are deep-seated and must take into account the nature of the violence with which we are faced.
It is of the nature of all internecine violence that it lives on hope. Violence feeds upon the hope of success. Even if success were probably available by peaceful means, there is still a premium upon violence, to seize it sooner and to seize it in circumstances in which the violent will have the upper hand over the peaceable. Contrariwise, in so far as the prospects of success recede and become distant, the premium upon violence is replaced by a penalty. Violence will not continue indefinitely where the objects which it proposes to itself appear to be unattainable, or at any rate unattainable within a predictable future.
I believe that we have to apply this anatomy of violence to the situation in Northern Ireland and to the two types of violent action which we see at work there. Anarchist violence lives by grievance, it flourishes by grievance, by using grievance as a means of division and as a weapon for self-justification and for further advance. More often than not, and indeed more effectively than not, grievance is exaggerated or artificially manufactured. There are grievances under all forms of administration, and it does not lie in the mouth of a Member of this House representing a seat in Great

Britain to say that there are no grievances against administration in the six counties of Northern Ireland; but it seems to me perfectly clear that such grievances as there are have been exaggerated out of all proportion to serve the purposes not of reform but of anarchy itself.
Anyone who studies the anatomy of this thing will see the way in which it uses grievance. It uses it in order that violence itself may be held to be proof that grievance exists, so that authority may be discredited and that when authority makes reforms and changes they appear to be done as the result of violence and in obedience to the bidding of violence. This is part of the mechanics of the thing.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what would be the position in Wolverhampton if there were 47 per cent. unemployed among the male population? Would he be living in a non-violent society?

Mr. Powell: There have been times when there were levels of unemployment such as that in parts of Great Britain. In such circumstances many citizens live in conditions of distress and suffering; but I am talking about grievance against authority and against Government, and my first point is that both the Government in Northern Ireland and the Government in this country actually assist violence and strengthen it in so far as they appear to act and appear to reform under the pressure of violence.

Mr. Rose: rose——

Mr. Powell: I would not have thought that any hon. Member would wish to support political action which was taken under the threat of violence. That is not a very parliamentary attitude. Above all, we in this House have to refrain, and public comment should refrain, from approving political action in Northern Ireland which is seen to be the fruit of violence, brought about as a result of violence.

Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, during the five years in which we have discussed political action to remedy the ills in Northern Ireland, he has stood silent, yet, as soon as violence occurs, he is on his feet and is there? Will he explain why, whenever


there is a chance of inciting violence, the right hon. Gentleman is there in the middle deliberately inciting it?

Mr. Powell: If any hon. Member of this House or anyone outside it can find me inciting or advocating violence, I am willing to stand the charge either in this House or anywhere else.
I come to the second kind of violence which is at work in Northern Ireland, the violence which seeks to promote the aspiration for the absorption of the six counties of Northern Ireland into the Republic. That violence feeds upon the prospect of that aspiration being achieved. Unless the prospect of that achievement can be removed to a remote future, we can expect to see violence continue to feed and flourish upon that material.
There are three ways in which we in this House can, therefore, contribute to peace in Northern Ireland and to the security of the property and the lives of her citizens. The first is that neither by word nor deed do we treat the membership of the six counties in the United Kingdom as negotiable. Every word or act which holds out the prospect that their unity with the rest of the United Kingdom might be negotiable is itself, consciously or unconsciously, a contributory cause to the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland.
The second policy, which may not perhaps entirely commend itself to all my hon. Friends, is that we should work for a greater amalgamation and uniformity of administration, government, policy and economy in the six counties and in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we really intend the unity of the United Kingdom including the six counties, that unity must be seen in political and economic form. I realise that the present organisation of Northern Ireland reflects a long history—indeed, many of the false starts of history; but, if we mean to give assurance that the membership of the six counties in the United Kingdom will be, humanly speaking, permanent, then we have to be ready to draw the administrative and economic consquences from that.
Finally, I believe that we have to rationalise the present irrational status, in the law of the United Kingdom, of the Republic of Ireland and her citizens. At

the moment it stands as complete unreality, a fragment of past history fifty years and more out of date. I believe that the frank recognition in the law of this country that the Republic and her citizens are what they have for centuries claimed, argued, desired and indeed fought to be, would bring a pacification to the situation, in that it would reinforce what we have got to inculcate namely, that the embodiment of the six counties in the United Kingdom is humanly speaking to be regarded as a permanancy and therefore something on which no description of violence is able to feed.

Miss Devlin: rose——

Mr. Powell: I shall be finished in a couple of seconds. In nothing I have said is there the slightest particle, I will not say of hostility, but of ill will, to the Republic and her citizens. Much the contrary. But we in this House have a duty to our fellow subjects. whatever their views or religion—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or colour."]—or colour, who are living in Northern Ireland. I believe we can only discharge that duty by proving that they are part of us and we of them and that we intend in word and in deed that so long as is foreseeable it shall remain so.

5.42 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: Before making my own contribution to this debate, I should like to answer the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) simply by sugguesting to him that in his impeccable logic he will not deny the existence of a third form of violence in Northern Ireland. But, coming from the party that he does, he saw fit to overlook the violence which leads in Northern Ireland to the highest infant mortality rate in Great Britain, the highest incidence of tuberculosis and the highest incidence of most of the illnesses and diseases associated with poverty. The violence of class, the violence of the party represented by the right hon. Gentleman, the violence of property and land owners in Northern Ireland, mean that working-class children die slowly, quietly and respectably in damp houses unfit for human habitation.
The number of times that we have discussed Northern Ireland in this House


have been few. It is almost a year since this House decided that it was time to have another emergency debate on Northern Ireland. A common feature that runs through our debates on this subject is on the lines, "Do not inflame passions." It may surprise hon. Members, though it is not due to the fact that I have lost an appendix, that I am not going to inflame anything. I do not intend to make any provocative statements. I simply intend to state a number of cold facts.
Sometimes one cannot help it if facts prove to be provocative to people who deny the truth of their very existence. For fifty years in Northern Ireland we have been ruled by the Unionist Party. The Unionist Party is not simply a party of the Protestant people. It never was. It is a party of Toryism. It is bungling and bigoted, much like the party that sits opposite at present. Fifty years of that Government have given the people of Northern Ireland slum housing, high rents, unemployment, low wages and a divided working class.
That Government are now asking us to believe that road-to-Damascus conversions are possible. It is a Government which for fifty years have said to the Catholic working class, "You are disloyal. You are entitled to nothing." It is a Government which for fifty years have openly been making statements in line with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West; namely, "If you do not like it, clear off to the Republic." It is a Government which have said to the Protestant people, "You cannot have anything either, because of the Catholic population." By playing one section against the other, the Government have given nothing to either. They now feel that half a dozen sentences in a Government communiqué will change the face of Ulster and make it a happy place to live in. But a couple of sentences will never change our problem.
We need solutions. We have had all the usual chat today, as on every other day. The first day I sat in this House my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that I had offered no solutions. I have been here almost a year, and nobody else has offered solutions. Therefore, I am going to offer some. They are solutions which do not go as far as

I would like to go, because I believe one cannot reform the Northern Ireland situation. It needs a much more radical and permanent change. There are meaningful reforms which can and must be carried out if we are to stop rioting. Catholics and Protestants not because they live in slum houses, or because they live in council houses whose rents they cannot afford. They cannot afford them because those who work are paid low wages, and many are forced to live off the employment exchange.
What we need in Northern Ireland is not General Freeland running around telling the working-class hooligan that he will be instantly shot if he shows his nose on the streets, while a hooligan like Dr. MacDonald is able to clear off to the Bahamas with £16½ million made out of the sweat of the labour of the people of Northern Ireland. What we need is work and homes. We can have that kind of reform immediately. We can immediately have legislation to provide the workers in Northern Ireland with a minimum living wage. This is simple, social democratic legislation.
We can have immediately in Northern Ireland legislation demanding equal pay for women. This is a very important matter. In an area like Derry and Strabane there is 25 to 30 per cent. male unemployment since female labour is cheaper. The private enterprise scoundrel who comes to Northern Ireland, where labour is cheap anyway, gets his labour even cheaper by employing our women and leaving our men sitting at home. Therefore we, even more than the people of this country, need equal pay for women.
We need legislation to ensure that the profits made in Northern Ireland go back to the people who make those profits. We have heard about the economic progress of Northern Ireland. Members of this House on this side would do well to remember the various definitions of wealth. True prosperity is not the amount of money one accumulates but how that wealth is distributed among the people who produce it. It is not being properly distributed in Northern Ireland. We work for low wages. We produce the profits that made Dr. MacDonald rich, with the help of British taxpayers' money.
Dr. MacDonald, for the benefit of Members who are somewhat puzzled, was


Chairman of B.S.R. and recently cleared off to the Bahamas with £16½ million of untaxed money since his shares were registered outside the country.
We are the people whose hard labour for low wages produced the profits for Cyril Lord who, much to the embarrassment of a bungling Ministry of Commerce, diddled the Government of Nortern Ireland and cleared off with his profits leaving the taxpayers to pay his debts.
That is why we need that kind of legislation, and it can be brought into effect.
We need a massive injection of work, but we are not likely to get it from private enterprise. Many hon. Members of this House and too many people in Northern Ireland believe that there is no industry west of the River Bann simply because the majority of people there are Catholic. That is not a reason which is 100 per cent. true. Private industry does not go west of the River Bann because there are not massive profits to be made there. We are told that there could be profits there for private enterprise if there were better roads and better communications; but then the Government tell us that there is no justification for better roads and better communications until such time as there is industry. So we run in ever-decreasing circles, and the prospects of industry and agriculture decline west of the River Bann. We need State investment in State-owned industry under the workers' control. We need industries set up west of the River Bann for the purpose of providing employment, not profit.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may ask, "What would you make, what would you build and what would you produce?", and say that it is essential to look at the technical side of marketing. We are so short of houses that we could employ practically the entire population in such State-owned factories making housing components in order to house our homeless people.
Dealing with our housing problem, we are told that people, the good moderate men, condemn the Bombay Street burners and the Ballymurphy house grabbers. No one takes much account of the amount of interest taken every

year by City of London bankers from the Northern Ireland Housing Trust. In financial terms, it amounts to more money than that body collects in rents. That body is prevented from increasing the number of houses that it builds. In order to provide capital for more houses, it raises rents which people cannot afford to pay because their employers do not raise wages. We must have that debt cancelled. It can be done. The City of London banks and the central clearing banks can afford to do without the money. We cannot afford to do without the homes.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I fail to see what high interest rates, however much we deplore them, have to do with rioting, street fighting and damage to property, much of it Republican property. How do high interest rates justify throwing stones and petrol bombs at the police and the Army?

Miss Devlin: I was trying to make it as simple as possible. I will make it even simpler. The high interest rates charged by the banks on money borrowed by people who build houses mean that anyone borrowing £X has to pay back £X plus. That means that someone has to produce the plus amount which has to go back to the bank, and invariably it comes from the tenant who lives in the house. That means that the underpaid member of the working class is forced to pay the interest. That means that the number of houses is kept down, that the number of homeless goes up, and that people not because they do not have decent houses.
In the Government communiqué we are told about the central housing authority. Not only must that authority be relieved of this initial debt. It cannot start off with this burden. But it must start off now. When I last had the opportunity of speaking to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, she told me that her Department had not received any definite plans from Mr. Faulkner about the setting up of the central housing authority. She said that she expected it to be something like six months before she had definite plans. We must have that housing authority as a duly elected body set up immediately. We must have


a crash housing programme now, not in six months, a year or 18 months.
We must have much more radical change in Northern Ireland than the present communiqué offers, and there is one important point which we should not forget. In the original communiqué there was a paragraph relating to the introduction of legislation to outlaw religious discrimination. I may have overlooked it in the more recent statements from the two Governments, but it appears that that paragraph has quietly been dropped. It is time that Her Majesty's Government stopped backsliding and reinstated that paragraph in its very important position. There should be immediate legislation.
We are told that the reforms are on the Statute Book. Only last night in a major town in my constituency, Omagh, the council met and rejected the points system for the allocation of houses. What steps can be taken? I have already written to the Commissioner of Complaints, whatever good that may do. It is on the Statute Book, and people in Omagh still have to queue, wait, and abandon their own class to fight for houses by vying with the people who own them.
Those are the solutions which I am offering. To me, they seem very reasonable and moderate. However, I think that it must be admitted that the Government of Northern Ireland, because they are a Tory Government, are utterly incapable of introducing social democratic legislation. Would the party opposite introduce any of the legislation necessary in Northern Ireland to end our housing shortage or unemployment situation?
Therefore, we get the solution offered from this House—the solution of force. All the troops in the world will not help to solve the Northern Ireland problem. Troops can only enforce the existing situation. Possibly enough has been said about the crass stupidity of General Freeland's statement on television last night. To say, on the one hand, "We will shoot everyone" and, on the other hand, "We are clearing out"——

Hon. Members: He did not say that.

Miss Devlin: That is what he was understood to say. He said that petrol bombers would have to take note of the fact that they were liable to be shot dead in the street. If there is a crowd

of people on the street, one of whom has thrown a petrol bomb, as happened in the Shankill Road—which right hon. and hon. Members opposite chose to forget—the Army cannot guarantee to shoot the person who threw it. The shooting of people, guilty or innocent, will not solve the problem of Northern Ireland. The sending of more troops can do nothing but keep the traditional rôle of the British Army; that is, enforcing the British interest. At the moment, whether Her Majesty's Government like to admit it or not, what the Army is doing is enforcing a dual standard of British citizenship. the Army is enforcing the status quo in Northern Ireland, and there British standards fall far below what they are in this country.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The Army is keeping the peace.

Miss Devlin: The Army has endeavoured to keep the peace but it cannot do so. My hon. Friend may defend the Army when he rises if he has an opportunity to speak but he may allow me the privilege of saying that I have no reason to defend the British Army and therefore I have no intention of doing so.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is protecting lives.

Miss Devlin: The British Army claims to help people in Derry. I am not denying that the British Army has saved lives. Hon. Members are always more eager to jump to their own defence than to the defence of the people of Northern Ireland. I am not complaining about the British Army in Northern Ireland but I am saying that the British Army is a military organisation, and it is not the duty of a military organisation to change the situation of a country politically or socially. The smiles of hon. Members on the Front Bench and the grin of one in particular annoy me. But they will never excuse their own inactivity by increasing the number of British soldiers in Northern Ireland.
Already the soldiers have been attacked by Catholics and by Protestants; and I would remind the House that the Army is made up of ordinary working-class English boys who ought to be at home. Why they should be used in this way is beyond my knowledge.
I have endeavoured to point out a few solutions. If the Labour Government are telling me that after 50 years of Tory rule in Northern Ireland we, the people of Northern Ireland, should be as naive as the British Labour Government as to think that now, when the accumulated filth of 50 years of Tory misrule has been dredged to the surface, the same Government can clean it up, I would ask them a simple question. If they believe that a Conservative Government in Northern Ireland can introduce the necessary social, democratic legislation to clean up that slum, on what basis do they contest the father of that Government at the next General Election?

Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady who has just spoken has three times gratuitously libelled a constituent of mine. To put the record straight, may I say, first, that Dr. Macdonald made his fortune not in Northern Ireland but in Brierley Hill; and secondly, that by his great development of export trade to the United States he has made a unique contribution to the international trading position of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity at this point in time to correct anything he may wish. He must wait to catch my eye.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It will have been noticed by the House that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has endeavoured to widen very much the scope of this debate beyond the disturbances which the House is debating this afternoon; and one will note in passing the effect of these diversionary tactics. It seems to me, however, that the removal of her appendix has not removed her deep hatred, bitterness and evasiveness. She talks of the need for a massive injection of capital into Northern Ireland. Does she believe that the events of the last week, or the last year, make that any easier?
I have always believed that the hon. Lady was a "front" for more sinister people behind her. I was never sure whether she knew this herself, whether

she connived in it or lived on in ignorance. But I believe that the events of last week have shown the public in this country the "sinister influences", to use General Freeland's words, which are at work in Northern Ireland and the combination of the Irish Republican Army, republicanism and Marxism which is all mixed up in this unholy brew.
I ask the House, having listened to the words of the hon. Lady, to judge for itself the inflammatory contribution which her collection of half-truths and downright untruths can make in a delicate situation such as there is in Northern Ireland.
I speak this afternoon with very deep disappointment and bitterness. Over the last 18 months a Unionist Government has, I believe, made a massive contribution in a civil rights programme. I will not argue this afternoon the point that we should perhaps have accelerated the pace of this and dealt with it very much earlier; but that programme has the very broad support of the Unionist Party. But the quid pro quo for this, as I understood it in the communiqué of Downing Street and that of the Home Secretary last August, was that there would be firm and definite measures by the Army, in co-operation with the police, to restore law and order in Northern Ireland. This, I deeply regret to say, has not happened.
Last week people were exposed to mob rule in a way that they should never have been. While those on the other side of the House say—and I join with them —that the people in Northern Ireland have the right to full British standards, I say that the people of Northern Ireland also have the right to full British standards in protection from mob rule. That applies to Protestant and Catholic alike.
I am immensely grateful to the individual soldiers who have had this difficult and distasteful job to do. But I regret to say that there have been errors by the Army in its handling of a delicate situation over the last eight months, and that serious mistakes have been made. The failure to return to normality in what is called "No-Go land" in Belfast and in the Bogside has been a serious and fundamental mistake. In the House in October last I warned of its consequences.
In the early hours of Good Friday, alone and inconspicuously, I visited the perimeter of "No-Go land", and from what I saw clearly on that occasion this area still remains outside the Queen's Writ. There can be no doubt in my mind that the continuation of the existence of these areas creates a climate of lawlessness which inevitably must spill over, and last week we saw the consequences. Where have the errors been made? Are they errors of the Government here—at this stage I do not wish to pass judgment on them and I will keep an open mind on the point—or are they the errors of the Army chief in Northern Ireland?
I believe General Freeland's handling of the situation has been bad. I have studied reports of his Press conference on 3rd April, and I was appalled that he had been so very slow in grasping the true nature of the problems facing Northern Ireland. He talks of "sinister people". He might have discovered this earlier than after eight months.
I have a transcript of what General Freeland said on "Panorama". The Prime Minister today said if General Freeland was correctly reported—I was very glad that the Prime Minister put the record right—he gave the impression that there were certain circumstances in which the Army might leave. Alan Hart asked:
… How long can the Army be expected to stay.…
General Freeland said:
I would say there must be a limit to it, because the British Army has got obviously many other jobs to do.…
Later he said:
Time will run out on them, and also the Army may not stay long enough, or may not be allowed to stay long enough.…
The fundamental point in the disturbances of last week is that the I.R.A. element and the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force believe, I think wrongly, that the Army will leave and that the Government here will rat. I think that they are completely wrong. However, the point is that they believe it and they are getting into position for the situation. It may be months or years before it happens.
I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible than the remarks of General

Freeland on "Panorama". They must have given direct encouragement to that view. In this situation the credibility of General Freeland in Northern Ireland has been destroyed. I tell the House in sorrow, because it gives me no pleasure to attack a public servant, that he must be replaced.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The whole House must show its gratitude to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) because he has now written the epitaph on a convention that we tried to destroy five years ago. The Unionist Party, which raised point of order after point of order to prevent our discussing Northern Ireland, is now raising the matter, and I am delighted.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who has some association with history, may have been expected to know that violence is born not through hope but through despair. The despair of people of Northern Ireland has caused the violence. The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Irish history. If he knew anything about it he would know that the revolts of 1798 and 1867 and the Post Office in 1916 were born of despair and that the 50 or so men of Connolly's Citizens' Army knew that they could not win in 1916, but revolted just the same because there was no hope, only despair, and that was the only way that they could express their feelings. The right hon. Gentleman has divested me of any impression I might have had that he had the slightest understanding of the lessons of history, particularly Irish history. He seems to be devoted to playing the Orange card at the time of maximum danger when he can exploit violence for his own political purposes in trying to usurp the leadership of the Tory Party.
The root cause of the troubles in Northern Ireland is that for 50 years a third of the citizens have been excluded from all participation in the government of that country and in the various channels by which a country makes its decisions.
Over the last few months we have had the fire bombs, the explosions and the strong-arm tactics which have forced people out of their homes because of


their religion. I have fought for civil rights since I entered this House. If anyone is so misguided as to think that the events of last week have aided the cause of civil rights or eased the stranglehold of Unionism in Northern Ireland, they should remember that sectarian bigotry has been the greatest single cause of economic degradation and political division in Northern Ireland and that there can be no place for it in the civil rights movement.
If there is to be violence in Northern Ireland, let it come from the thugs who clubbed the marchers at Burntullot, let it come from those who fired volleys of shots into British soldiers on the Shankill Road while waving the Union Jack, let it come from the Lardner Burkes of Northern Ireland. Let it not come from the Civil Rights Movement or those interested in the eventual unification of Ireland.
I believe that it is our duty to condemn violence from wherever it may come, whether from Protestant or Catholic, whether from Republican or Unionist. Ultimately these people will have to live side by side, and do live side by side. How can one convince one's Protestant neighbour of the need for a united Ireland if one occupies his house and imitates the methods of the Paisley-ites that have been so well documented over the last few months?
I should like to quote the words of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, who said that the Government were firmly opposed to force as a solution as it provided no real answer to the problem. He relied instead on the encouragement of understanding, good will and co-operation between all groups in the country.
Regarding the problems involved in reunification, he said that consideration had to be given to the views of one million Irish people whose religious and social beliefs were different from those of the majority. There might also have to be an intermediate stage on the road to reunification where the North would retain for a time economic and financial links with Britain. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West seems to believe that there is no sea dividing Britain from Ireland.
Bigotry is a curse which has hindered the political and economic development

of Northern Ireland, and no one concerned with civil rights must respond to 50 years of Unionist aggression and bigotry by falling victim to the same disease. The Protestant working class of Belfast has been duped for too long by Unionists opposite who played upon bigotry to such an extent that the average earnings in Northern Ireland, to say nothing of the astronomical unemployment figures, are £120 less than the worst region in the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet, in a recent survey carried out by Strathclyde University, whereas only 22 per cent. of people in Scotland and 28 per cent. in England claim to be middle-class, 44 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland consider themselves middle-class. It seems that if one wears an Orange sash and has a house with a lavatory one is middle-class. This is what the Unionists have played on to dupe the Protestant workers in Belfast and elsewhere to vote for their party rather than for their true interests.
With respect to the British Army, which I believe has kept peace in Northern Ireland, has prevented bloodshed and has stopped the massacre of Catholics in the Bogside and other areas, certain things have to be said about this week's events. Certain points have arisen because of a misunderstanding of the Irish mentality. No one hit out at bigotry more than James Connolly, who was shot in his invalid chair by British bullets. Irishmen do not forget that kind of thing. When General Sir Ian Freeland made his spine-chilling remark about shooting to kill, well meant as it may have been, it sent a chill of horror down my spine. I am sure that it also sent a chill of horror down the spines of many patriotic Irishmen who remember British bullets in very different terms from us. They remember how British bullets were used in 1916. I think that his foolish action, well-intentioned though it may have been, was compounded yesterday. It ignores the fact that the main shooting incidents and explosions, the enormous arson and violence that there has been, has been on the part of the U.V.F.
We had no calls for debates on matters of urgent importance from hon. Gentlemen opposite when Catholic families were forced out of their homes, when 55 pubs were burned down in Belfast and when, one after another, pylons and other


public places were destroyed by U.V.F. bombs. Not one peep did we have from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Yet they raise the matter now.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman himself raised the last emergency debate on Northern Ireland, and at that time I and many of my colleagues rose to support him.

Mr. Rose: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been converted after five years. Five years ago, in March 1965, the hon. Gentleman and others—and this is documented—raised point of order after point of order on Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. The hon. Gentleman can read all this in two article of mine in the Irish Times two months ago. On that occasion those hon. Gentlemen—and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in particular—tried to prevent the discussion of Northern Ireland
Turning to the events of last week, I refer to an article in The Times on 4th April which referred to how this arose. It referred to an Orange parade on Tuesday:
which was not re-routed in spite of protests. Inevitably the parade was regarded as a provocation and equally inevitably during the afternoon a Republic tricolour was produced.
According to the Roman Catholics, troops arrested the man with the flag and held him for an hour while local vigilantes pleaded for his release. O crowd gathered, and would not disperse even when the man was freed. The vigilantes asked for time to break up the mob and, they claimed, were only given five minutes.
The 'snatch squads' moved in.
It was a critical situation made more critical—and again one has to understand the history of Ireland and the plantations in Ireland. I understand—and this is no ill-reflection on these soldiers—that the fact that this was a Scottish regiment, dressed in a particular way, was something which, imaginary or otherwise, was nevertheless resented by those people in Northern Ireland. It is not so much the fact that matters as the effect which it has on people.
I ask my right hon. Friend, first, to see that any political statement about the use of force in Northern Ireland is made through political channels and, second, to consider replacing the regi-

ment to let tempers cool down. I ask those in the civil rights movement to play their part in cooling tempers down, and I ask hon. Members opposite to play their part in fighting the most evil forces present in Northern Ireland today, the Reverend Ian Paisley and his friends.
What is needed in Northern Ireland is the reforms which are still paper reforms and which have not satisfied those who have asked for reforms over the last five years. The Prime Minister must keep his promise of July, 1964, to introduce new and impartial procedures for the allocation of housing and for the setting up of joint tribunals in which particular cases of alleged discrimination in public appointments can be dealt with. I think that the Race Relations Act ought to be extended to religious discrimination and applied to Northern Ireland. The enfranchisement of local government electors will be of no use whatever so long as Unionists retain their stranglehold in Derry because of the gerrymandering still allowed to exist there. Until the Unionists are prepared to yield up Derry to the majority of the citizens and until the Unionists are prepared to say that when there is a majority in a town against them that majority has the right to rule, there can be no peace in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have their part to play as well as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. When there is an amnesty for members of the R.U.C. involved in the Bogside incidents while people who were defending their homes are still lying in jail, as well as for my hon. Friend for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) who has a six months' suspended sentence over her head and a youngster who is serving two years imprisonment, and when it took John Hume, my hon. Friend and many others to raise the Devenny case again after the refusal to look into people who had actually been identified as being involved in that affair, is there any wonder why there has been discontent below the surface over this period?
The message to my right hon. Friend must be that we cannot sweep all this under a khaki carpet, necessary as it is to have British troops there to straddle the barricades and prevent violence. My right hon. Friend cannot hide behind the Northern Ireland Home Secretary. We must admit frankly that in this


situation social justice in Northern Ireland will be imposed from Westminster or not at all.
I conclude by saying that if mindless violence takes over I believe that another fifty years of Unionist rule will become inevitable and this will be catastrophic. But if it is so it is the result of fifty years of misrule by those same Unionists. The Unionists must be prepared to give up their privileges.
We in this House, on all sides, must deplore violence from whatever side it comes. In this unhappy hour, whatever party we belong to, we must join in deploring that violence, from whatever source it may come. We cannot ask for that violence to be ended until paper civil rights become full civil rights, and until the logic of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is fulfilled in one respect at least—that every one of the rights and privileges we hold dear in this Parliament are extended to the people in Northern Ireland.
There is one electoral way in which this can be done in which I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and that is by the introduction of proportional representation into Northern Ireland to ensure participation by the minority community as well as the majority.
I make no apology for saying that one day I believe that through a slow process Ireland will again be one nation and that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West misreads the situation. However, it will come not by force but by persuasion and by people living together as neighbours in mutual trust without discrimination, without bigotry and with understanding that the common enemies of the Protestant and Catholic working man in Belfast are the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I find that in many ways this is a difficult debate to reply to. I was one of those, Mr. Speaker, who rose yesterday when you ruled as you did in a way to make this debate possible. I did so because I felt it was not only inevitable but necessary that this House should show its concern over the events of the

past few days and not because I believed then, or that I have come to believe since I have heard the debate, that longterm or ultimate solutions would emerge from our discussions today.
We must face the fact that we are living, in a sense, from hand to mouth and from crisis to crisis and that the problem which ought to concern us all, and which certainly concerns me, and I think, my hon. Friends, is how to cope with the immediate situation. The Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that, whatever may be the truth or otherwise of what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has just said about the ultimate necessity of reforming abuses and meeting grievances, the events of the past few days did not—at any rate this was the right hon. Gentleman's assessment—bear a direct relationship either to the content of proposed reform or to the pace at which it was being carried out and did have and did reflect sinister influences which the right hon. Gentleman did not specifically name.
In that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right, and I was more impressed by the bomb incident in relation to that proposition than by the extremely obscure events which led to the riots at Ballymurphy. Somebody planted bombs in shops timed to go off in a busy street at a time when people could normally expect to be hurt. Whoever planted those bombs could not have known in advance whether the person who was going to be hurt was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, or a Unionist or a member of the Labour Party or of the People's Democracy. It seems to me—and this was the reason I rose yesterday—that what justifies this debate as a matter of urgency is not the perpetual crisis through which we have been living in the past 18 months or more, but the particularly ugly circumstance that there are people at work, whoever they may be, who seem to hate humanity as such.
I revert to the Ballymurphy incident, which seems to me a much simpler one in a way and as ugly. The last word on this was said by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Conner, who seemed to me to make one of the most moving elocutions a Christian bishop has ever said to his flock. If I may say so, I think that it was something which every Protestant would wish to say to his fellow Protestants in the situation which now


exists no less than Roman Catholics to their fellow Roman Catholics.
I see the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) sitting opposite me. I know that he is an honourable and reputed member of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not say to myself, "There goes a Papist, a child of the Scarlet Woman." I say to myself, "There is a fellow Christian"—and a rare bird that sometimes is in these wicked days. I think that what we really have to talk about is something far less fundamental than the philosophy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) or than the social proposals of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), to whose speech, in the hope that she may be able to come back, I will refer a little later.
This brings me to the components of the present situation. I start with the Army, and do so because I think that the immense majority in this House are proud of what the Army is trying to do in Ulster [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We believe that the troops are protecting lives. They are protecting the lives of one community against the other and of both communities against rather unknown and sinister influences. We are proud of them. We think that they are good soldiers well led.
I do not think that it is any part of my business to advert to the recent appearances on television of General Freeland, criticism of which appeared to be the only common factor in some of the divergent speeches to which we have listened. But I will say this to the Home Secretary in the hope that he may pass it on. It has crossed my mind in the last few hours and, indeed, in the last few days that when statements are to be made which may have political implications—it is no criticism of the G.O.C. to say that, but it is in a sense a criticism of the Governments both at Stormont and Westminster—such statements are better made by Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because Ministers, for all that we are professional politicians who are known to have a double dose of original sin, and for all our faults, are more sensitive to nuances than professional soldiers are. That, after all, is our job. Moreover, if Ministers make these pronouncements,

we can criticise them without feeling that we are attacking a public servant.
I do not want to pursue this matter, but I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether, if statements which are liable to lay themselves open to criticisms are to be made, whether they are necessary or not, it would not be better to expose Ministers to the communications media rather than to expose professional soldiers. In the meantime, I think that one of the encouraging features of the situation is the way in which the civilianised police seem to have recovered their self-confidence and morale and the way in which the Army has discharged its duties.
This brings me to the positive factors in the situation. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) declared, both over the weekend, if he is correctly reported, and, if I understood him correctly, today, a certain element of despair about what had happened. I think that it is very easy to despair in thinking about the situation. I want to tell him why I do not despair, although I admit that the situation is resting on somewhat rickety foundations.
To begin with—and I know that the Home Secretary will forgive me for saying this—I attach a great deal of importance to a measure of agreement between the two major parties in this House. I know that it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to believe that I have no particularly bad conscience in this matter. I have not. But I am sincerely apprehensive of what would happen if the Home Secretary and I allowed ourselves to fall out over this business. I think that the consequences in Northern Ireland might be quite serious, and I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the kindness he has shown me in the past over this matter.
At the same time, I would like to say something else. I think that the whole House understands the rather hilarious atmosphere of Prime Ministers' Questions and Answers. Prime Ministers being chivvied have every right to make a sharp riposte, but I ask the Home Secretary to convey delicately to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that excessive references to the shortcomings of the party of which I am a member and, indeed, to the Unionist Party, some of


whose members are friends of mine, do make it more difficult for me to maintain this atmosphere, which I am anxious to do.
The second thing I see which is positive about the situation concerns the Dublin Government. I do not think that we can altogether forget the Dublin Government in this situation. One has to be very delicate about how one talks about them. It is almost impossible to talk about anybody in Ireland without annoying them. But, if I may say so, after a somewhat shaky start, which I do not hold against him because, as a professional politician, I understand his difficulties, we owe a great deal to Mr. Jack Lynch. His latest speeches were intended to be helpful and have succeeded in reducing the bad feeling which would otherwise have existed. To put the thing in the converse way, which is perhaps the less offensive way, in my opinion it would be easy indeed for an unwise Minister in Dublin to cause innocent lives to be lost in Londonderry or Belfast, and the second of the factors in the situation which has caused me not to despair is the fact that we owe this gratitude to some of the Ministers in Dublin, who have their own constituency problems, as we do ours.
I fear that all my caresses this evening are going to be treated as the kiss of death, but the other thing I want to say is about my friends at Stormont. The third thing which leads me not to despair about the present situation is that, with a great deal of personal courage, and under a hail of abuse and some efforts at intimidation, the reforming wing of the Unionist Party is still in power in Stormont. I sincerely believe that, whatever may be thought about the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, if one removed it altogether or broke it up irreparably at this moment there would be nothing left upon which one could build any kind of even temporary stability. I believe this is also the view of the Government. It is certainly my belief.
Some people hanker after direct rule from Westminster. I was not even quite sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean that as the implication of what he was saying. One cannot govern another people—and in a sense, all British as they may feel themselves, every Ulsterman is not an Englishman—by means of the

Civil Service alone, courts of justice alone, troops and police alone. There must be some kind of Parliamentary institution and an Executive which is responsible to it.
This House owes a great debt of gratitude not only to Lord O'Neill, whose political disappearance from the scene I regret, but also to the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and his friends, for continuing to bear the burden of responsibility as they do from day to day.
These three factors lead me to be very far from the despair which the hon. Gentleman expressed, both over the weekend and in the House this afternoon.
This brings me to the very capable speech of the hon. Lady for Mid-Ulster. Before I proceed to say anything about it, let me say something, I hope not wholly disagreeable, about her. It fell to me to welcome her on the occasion of her Maiden Speech. I said then, and I say now, that one of the things which impress me most about her is her immense personal courage. Courage is a quality which I very greatly admire. To come here after her recent operation was no small physical and moral effort. Although personally I think she may have been, in her own interest, unwise to do so, I can only respect her the more for running that particular risk.
I want to say two other things, which I hope she will not find condescending, about her personally. In the first place I think, if she stays the course, she will be a very formidable Parliamentarian. She will not expect me to say that I agree with many of her views or approve of most of her tactics, but if she will stay the course in Parliament and become—as she said she would not—a member of "this bloody club", as she put it, I think she has a considerable political future.

Mr. Fitt: The right and learned Gentleman is offending his hon. Friends.

Mr. Hogg: I thought that they were complaining that the hon. Lady was doing things outside she should not; she has always been quite good here, within reason.
There is one other thing on which I agree with the hon. Lady, and I would mention it before I come to criticise. Whatever anybody else may think, I


agree with the hon. Lady and the two other speakers who have spoken from the other side of the House that the unforgiveable crime of the Irish is poverty. Although I have said, and I say again, that I do not believe that the events of the last few days can be related directly to grievance or to the need for reform, what she says about the rate of male unemployment in Londonderry and in parts of Belfast and what she says about house-building is something that each of us ought to take very much to heart.
On the last occasion on which I spoke one of the suggestions I made was that some kind of house-building industry could be erected and based upon a factory-built component system in parts of Northern Ireland where unemployment was very high. Although I am not one of those who think that one can get rid of religious or political difference or even ordinary crime by simply curing the economic grievances, what is ultimately intolerable to me is that economic injustice should continue to exist, even if it did not cause crime and unrest. The message which ought to go out from this House about this trouble is that we will never abandon our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland either to injustice or to violence. We will stand by them with our troops as long as necessary. But we will not tolerate in the United Kingdom conditions that we would not tolerate inside our own constituencies. I think the matter is as simple as that.
If I might say this to the hon. Lady, before she does become a member of this "club", if she does want to unite all the Members of this House—it is very difficult to do—there is one thing which will do it and that is to say: "Boycott British goods."

6.47 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): When I heard that there was to be a debate today, I naturally reflected on the last time we had such a debate. I have looked back at the speeches and the points of criticism that were made then. I have not made a speech on the subject of Northern Ireland since we had the debate in the House last October. On the whole, I do not think either Northern Ireland or anywhere else has been any the worse for my failure to make a

speech. I feel sometimes the situation is perhaps dramatised, agonised over, dissected and argued about to a point where debate becomes not a help but a hindrance. I do not feel that my six months' silence has done anything to make events worse in the country we are discussing.
I naturally reflected, when I knew today's debate was to be held, on whether there was a new situation arising out of the disturbances and, if so, whether new initiatives were needed. Was the situation different from the one we were discussing last October and, if so, what changes in policy should I propose?
There is one very significant difference between this debate and that of last October, as anybody who reads it will see. When I so cordially agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when he said that he did not despair about this situation, I had this, among other things, in mind. The memory of the House is not so short that it will have forgotten the voluminous criticism directed continuously and constantly against the Royal Ulster Constabulary six months ago. If there has been any progress that has been marked, it is surely shown by the absence of any reference at all this afternoon either to condemn or to praise, except, in passing, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It does mark the difference between the debate we were having then and the debate we are now having. There is no doubt that Sir Arthur Young and the Royal Ulster Constabulary under not only his leadership but that of their officers, including the old ones, with his new leadership, have begun to win a substantial place for independence for impartiality in the minds of everyone in Northern Ireland.
I want to make that absolutely clear. It will not be fair or proper today to say that the R.U.C. is intervening on behalf of either Protestants or Catholics. Indeed, I was interested to read the account of how, when a young man, perhaps a little unwisely, ventured out into the town square at Easter sporting an Easter lily and was set upon by a group of Protestants, the R.U.C. plunged into the middle of the crowd to rescue him and to make sure that he was unharmed. People might say that was impossible a year ago—I do not think that it would


have been—but it is possible today, and it is happening every day.
Another important factor is that the recruitment to the police is going at an unparalleled rate. There is a much higher rate of new recruits than has been known for years past. And they are coming from both communities—naturally, not so many from one as from the other, but in proportion almost equally. These are real advances.
When I detected the atmosphere of gloom which has pervaded this Chamber today, I disagreed with it. I agree much more with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone: there are substantial reasons for hope in Northern Ireland, and if I do not detail them all, it is only because the debate must finish quickly. But I pull out the most noticeable. There is not a single man on my side who will not admit that, last time, his criticism was focused on the R.U.C., and today—not a word. I quote that just as an illustration.
Is there a new political situation? Do the events of the last few days demonstrate that there is? My answer is, "No, they do not." What has happened has been an outbreak of violence. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, was right to say that the bomb incidents are by far the most serious of these.
But if I have to make a distinction between the situation now and the situation last autumn, it would be this. Then, we faced first one community and then both communities, all of whom were living under a cloud of total fear and, indeed, panic. When I heard the criticisms of the British Army being made today—not by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—I remembered the appeals which were made that the British Army should go in, and the British Army has discharged its functions with complete impartiality and with great courage. It is not the Army who have changed, it is some of the people who were then inviting the Army in to help them.

Miss Devlin: Just to clear the air, I should like to make it clear that when I asked for intervention from my right hon. Friend, it was, in a 74-word telegram, for the British police force. I never asked for his British Army.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not saying that the hon. Lady asked for the intervention of the troops; what I am saying is that her supporters did. It is her supporters who still want them there and do not want them withdrawn. This is true of many areas in Northern Ireland.
I want to go on record to repeat what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said. The British troops there are undertaking a task which is unique in British history. It is a distasteful task. To put it at its most parochial, they had to have their Easter leave cancelled for 16 demonstrations. What are they supposed to think about that? I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—they are ordinary working chaps. They want their leave like anyone else wants his bit of fun and demonstrating. The Army is doing a magnificent job there, and it is well led.
I come immediately to the question of whether General Freeland should make political utterances or—to put it the other way—whether Ministers should not do it. Ministers did it, but the same notice was not taken of what they said. My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence for Administration was in Northern Ireland last week. He gave a full Press conference on the day and evening that he left. There were substantial television interviews when he returned to London. He was interviewed on the radio, I think on Radio 4. I have a full note of what he said. If there is any criticism to be directed about those statements, it is not against General Freeland but against the Government here and the spokesmen of the Government. My hon. Friend and I will take full responsibility for what was said on those occasions, as we must do.
I must say, I think that soldiers are put in a very difficult position by the mass communications media. Any of us who have watched the television—I remember it during the last autumnal incidents—saw the television cameras and the microphones being thrust under the mouth of a young major who had had to take an operational decision only 30 seconds beforehand and who was asked to justify it before the world. This is a new feature, which I do not much relish. General Freeland's interview was, of course, a deliberate one, and what he had to say


he said in a way which not everyone may approve of in this House, but which nevertheless could not be faulted in the terms in which he put it.

Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend is extremely gallant in these matters in coming to the defence of General Freeland so wholeheartedly, but will he accept, in talking about a new situation, that generals who talk about shooting to kill or generals who presume to talk about the time that British soldiers will stay in Ireland are helping to create a highly dangerous situation?

Mr. Callaghan: These are two separate points—first of all, about what he said and second about what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster said this afternoon. We were told by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—I do not wish to misquote her, but I think I have it right—first that anyone who appeared on the streets would be shot. She soon retreated from that position. Then, she said that if there is a person carrying a petrol bomb the Army may not shoot the right one, so they may shoot everyone or the wrong ones.
I should like to ask—I do not want a reply now: I should like a considered reply—how is the Army supposed to behave when petrol bombs are being thrown at them? What are they supposed to do?

Miss Devlin: rose——

Mr. Callaghan: Not now, I do not want an answer now.
Everyone of us has seen on television the pictures of our boys standing there while brickbats have been rained on their heads, and they did nothing at all. They stood there and took the lot. What are they supposed to do?

Mr. McMaster: rose——

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will give way to the hon. Lady or to my hon. Friend, or to neither, if I may be permitted.
But there must come a moment when the General Officer Commanding says "We have had enough of this. Action must be taken". That is what General Freeland was saying. What he said was that if a petrol bomb——

Mr. Christopher Norwood: Another Sharpeville.

Mr. Callaghan: Another Sharpeville? I do not remember the Africans at Sharpeville having petrol bombs. What I remember about that is that Africans who had held a peaceful demonstration were turning and fleeing, were shot in the back by the troops. That is what I remember.

Mr. Norwood: rose——

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not give way.
I want to quote what General Freeland said:
…the petrol bomb is a lethal weapon…anybody who manufactures, carries, or throws a petrol bomb is liable to most terribly tough punishment. They are liable to be shot dead in the street if, after warning, they persist. So, if you could get that across to any potential…bomb throwers, I would be grateful.
Some hon. Gentlemen may not like the choice of language, but the way to avoid it is very simple. Do not go out with a petrol bomb. That is the answer. There is not a single problem in Northern Ireland today, there is not a single injustice—though there are some which exist in Northern Ireland—which is worth the loss of a life of a single British soldier or a single Irish citizen—not one. It is high time that some of the speeches that are being made emphasise this fact. I do not despair about it, but I do despair about the concentration on the imagined and real grievances at times to the complete exclusion of the measures of progress which are being made in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether we could not have a great housing programme. We have got one. It was announced only a few weeks ago. With the aid of the British Treasury and, therefore, the British taxpayer—all these things cost a lot of money—the Northern Ireland Government were able to announce that the house-building programme in Northern Ireland is to be increased over a five-year period from 54,000 houses built in the last five years to 73,500 built in the next five.
The rate of building houses in Northern Ireland is much higher than it is in Scotland, England or Wales. There is a big expansion of house-building, financed—properly, and I do not complain about it—by Her Majesty's Government. This is "doing something immediately", but hon. Members cannot


expect to see houses going up overnight, like mushrooms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster can point to grievances, and I am, of course, always ready to listen to her. I listen to her privately as well as publicly. But let her sometimes acknowledge in public the substantial progress that is being made.

Miss Devlin: I will acknowledge substantial progress when it is made, but to date the only progress made in Northern Ireland is progress for the benefit of the electoral campaign of the British Labour Party—[Interruption.]—and not for the material benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan: I will only comment that I can think of better ways of helping our electoral image than by what is happening in Northern Ireland.
Alas, I do not have time to develop a number of points on which I would otherwise comment. However, I have not dealt with the question of political control. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that it is important that Ministers should make new statements of policy; and, indeed, they did so on this occasion. It is vitally important that generals should not appear to be put in the position of making policy in any way. This is fully recognised and understood.
As for the future of British troops in Northern Ireland, I read with some surprise what was said, and when I saw the context in which it was uttered, I thought that the General had perhaps been the victim of one of those interviewers who leads one on from question to question so that perhaps he was putting a personal point of view. However, the position from the point of view of the future of British troops in Northern Ireland was stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House this afternoon. I re-state it here and now, and it cannot be stated by anybody else.
British troops will remain in Northern Ireland for as long as it is decided by Her Majesty's Government that they should remain there; that is, for as long as it is necessary for them to stay there and for as long as it is necessary for them to do the work for which they are there.

No time limit has been set, but how long they will stay there will be a political decision. I cannot foresee a time when British troops will be withdrawn in the foreseeable future.
As to whether their numbers can be reduced, that will depend on whether the people of Northern Ireland can or cannot live together peaceably. They have it in their hands to decide how long the troops will stay, the purposes for which they will stay and under what conditions they will stay.

Mr. McMaster: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is a sinister element at work in Northern Ireland?

Hon. Members: Rubbish!

Mr. Callaghan: As to sinister elements, I have seen what has been said about this, but I know of no new factions in Northern Ireland that did not exist before; that is, the I.R.A., who talk a great deal and in many voices, and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Both are committed to courses of action that would rule out any democratic solution. There are no new sinister elements as far as I know. My information may not be as good as that of some of those who have been able to pinpoint from where the bombs have come.
I regret that I cannot inform the House of that. I do not know the answer any more than anybody else who is in this position can know the answer. However, I do know that both the I.R.A. and the U.V.F. are both capable of planting bombs and of causing great damage and loss of life. So far it has not been possible, despite the most intensive efforts, to discover who was responsible for the latest series of outrages.
However, there is no new sinister conspiracy of which I am aware, except a sudden burst of activity which, as far as I can see, springs from the activities of one of those groups. I am not trying to say who it is, and I hope that no hon. Member will try to pinpoint it. I say that because I remember the debate 12 months ago, when many people thought that they were sure from where the explosions originated. I do not think they are quite so sure about it now. A few of them might be, but not many would be as prepared as they were 12 months ago to take the line which they took then


about the origins of the explosions on this occasion.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West that violence will be no solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him for saying that because I know that he has tried to give leadership in this matter. I also know that Britain will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, and that is why I was always slow to step in. Only the people of Northern Ireland can solve their own problems and we should be diffident about offering our views. I hope that I am not forward in proffering my views on the subject.
The people of Northern Ireland can decide a simple fact about which there is no need to exaggerate or give way to despair. There may be 250 or 500 men in Northern Ireland today who are intent on dragging the country down so that it lives under the shadow of the gun. The question is not so much what those few hundred will do, but what the rest of the people, the other 1½ million, will do.
Will they allow themselves to live under the shadow of the gunman and permit themselves to be divided by this latest outbreak into two groups, separated by a mile of misunderstanding, or will they support the only institutions which can preserve peace for them and enable them to live peaceably? They are constitutional government, a perpetuation of the reforms and the full implementation of the reforms on which the Ulster Unionist Government have embarked. They have embarked on them and they are carrying them through. Let there be no doubt about that.
To hon. Members who are still disposed to criticise, I say that there must be full support for the Army and the R.U.C. in this situation. They are forces which stand between them and anarchy. It is not their job to weaken them, but to build them up. Unless they do that, nothing can stand between them and the division of the people of Northern Ireland into two factions, each at each other's throats without anybody to keep the peace and with no hope for the future.

Mr. Pounder: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have re-posted my select-tion of Amendments on Report. There is only one alteration. Hon. Members will note that I have added Amendment No. 50, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), in Clause 99, page 82, line 6, at beginning insert:
'subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section'.
That will be discussed, if convenient, with Amendments Nos. 51 and 53.

New Clause 6

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF A DWELLING-HOUSE OCCUPIED BY A PERSON PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE

Section 16 of the Rent Act 1965 (recovery of dwelling-house held for occupation by a person employed in agriculture) shall have effect as if for the words "under the terms of his employment as a person employed" there were substituted the words "employed or primarily engaged"—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Brought up and read the First time.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We are now moving downwards, as it were, from matters of great moment to the comparatively simple question of the terms on which the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house occupied by a person primarily engaged in agriculture shall be governed by the Bill.
The new Clause was discussed in identical terms in Committee, when it was disagreed to only by the Chairman's casting vote. My hon. Friends and I are, therefore, grateful that the matter should have been selected at this stage for further discussion.
The object of the Clause is very limited. It is to enable some spare farm houses which are temporarily not needed for agricultural use to be leased as dwelling-houses until such time as they are needed again for agriculture. The 1965 Rent Act


did this for the spare farm cottage; that is to say, the house previously occupied by someone employed as a farm worker. The manner of drafting this essential exception to the statutory restrictions on repossession did not cover the spare farmhouse, the house previously occupied by the employer or the farmer running a farm business. If the exception had been drafted on the basis of any dwelling-houses rated as agricultural dwelling-houses this distinction and difficulty would not have arisen.
The farm house is not just another dwellinghouse in the total of property but is an essential and expensive item of capital equipment without possession of which it is not normally possible to farm the land attached to it as a separate business on its own. There are many cases today where one farmer is actually farming two or more farms simultaneously so as to have a bigger business but without any intention or certainty of permanent amalgamation of those farms as is provided for on a permanent basis by the Government's grant-aided amalgamation schemes.
If a permanent merger of farms were contemplated, the surplus farm house could generally be sold freehold. This amendment is needed to cover those cases where the farm house must be kept in the same ownership as the land so that at any time, through choice or necessity, the farmer may be able to give up one farm—sell, lease, or transfer it to a relative—whereupon it becomes essential that the spare farm house should be available for the new farmer's occupation along with the land and farm buildings.
As the law stands at present, possession of such a farm house would be regained only if it had been let furnished for a fixed term, which is not very practicable, or had a rent of less than two-thirds of its rateable value, which usually is uneconomic. In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggested a peppercorn rent; but that would be even less economic. Otherwise an unfurnished letting would create a regulated tenancy which would be subject to all the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Acts. The result is that a number of farm houses have to be left empty on legal advice. Here I declare an interest because I have been advised not

to let a farm house which I do not need for some years. That is bad for the structure of the house, it deprives someone of a potential home for a limited period, and it is not good for a rural society.
Having studied the Parliamentary Secretary's replies in Committee, I think that he was making our proposal seem much more sweeping than is our intention. We are not wedded to the words of this Clause, and I am sure that his advisers could perfectly well devise a method which would remove this legal anomaly without its being the thin end of a thick wedge. The hon. Gentleman said that this provision
would allow repossession from an ex-farmer or his widow.
The Country Landowners' Association, which supports this proposal, has pointed out that without it it would be inadvisable for an owner to allow an outgoing tenant to remain on in the farm house, assuming that it was not needed, for the period of a year, or whatever was agreed to enable the outgoing tenant to find some other home of his own.
7.15 p.m.
In the same speech the Parliamentary Secretary expressed anxiety about the effect on grant-aided amalgamation schemes where it is part of a scheme that one farmer giving up his farm altogether should remain in his dwelling-house. It would be perfectly possible to make it a requirement of any such permanent amalgamation scheme that the farmer should have full security of tenure of the house.
The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude was best expressed when he said:
the right of repossession is one that ought to be given sparingly with due regard for the needs of occupiers to feel secure in their homes.
He also said:
the Clause sweeps away the time limits within which the rights of repossession may be exercised. It is reasonable that the owner should have a period he can use in which to make up his mind whether he will need his house or not, but for houses which have not been tied cottages it is not reasonable that he should be able to exercise that right indefinitely—against the occupiers who would, of course, with the passage of time, tend to regard the house as probably a permanent home."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 10th March, 1970; c. 1080.]


I do not believe that that accords with the reality of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the numbers of would-be tenants who do not need or seek a permanent home in the country. There are quite a few people, such as representatives of firms, Service personnel posted for fairly short periods at defence establishments and wanting pleasant married quarters, and people whose careers generally require them frequently to change their homes. Many of those people like to live in the countryside, even if they work in a town.
There are people returning from abroad or retiring from a town who would like, with their furniture, to occupy a house in the country for a limited period while they find their ideal house to purchase. One would like to have a situation in which this essential item of capital equipment could be leased under an agreement for a term of years varying with the requirements of the parties.
It would be perfectly possible to limit the number of these cases. Any agreement should be quite explicit. It could recite the agricultural contingency to be provided for. It could identify the land normally going with the farm house. If the Minister so desired, although I would think it unnecessary, any such farm house, or agreement in respect of it, could be registered with the Ministry. Perhaps the neatest Amendment would be to draft a parallel to Case 12 in the Third Schedule to the 1968 Rent Act, which has now consolidated Section 16 of the Rent Act 1965.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that neither I nor my hon. Friends wish to press this new Clause in its present form. We would like him, with his advisers, to reconsider this problem remembering that the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on a previous occasion that this was a matter for an Agriculture Bill. We now have an Agriculture Bill, and I hope that he will consider how to make a way around this quite small but acute difficulty at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is the first of 53 debates, three on new Clauses and 50 on Amendments, and we did not start until after 7 o'clock. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who so ably moved the new Clause, and I ask the Minister to look at the problem again. What is to be done with a surplus farm house which is only temporarily surplus? It is a practical problem, well known in the whole of agriculture, to which we are trying to find a solution.
There are a number of ways in which a farm house can become temporarily surplus. My hon. Friend has already cited one or two, and I can think of several others. A farmer may take the opportunity to buy for his son an adjacent farm that happens to have come on to the market perhaps because his son wants to farm it later or against the day when the son gets married. But the farm house is not wanted now, so what is he to do? The sensible thing, if he were allowed to do it, would be to let the farm house for four or five years to a person like those mentioned by my hon. Friend who wanted to take a farm house while looking for something more permanent. At the end of the lease the farmer could obtain possession if his son wanted it when he got married.
However, he cannot do that, so he has two other alternatives. If he sells the house he has parted with it for keeps, and if he makes the mistake of redecorating it first he becomes liable to the capital gains tax. So the only safe thing to do, to be absolutely certain that he can get possession when it is wanted for his son or any other member of the family, is to leave it empty, deteriorating as the months go by. But empty farm houses do no good to agriculture or anyone.
I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the problem so that between us we may try to arrive at a sensible solution to this practical problem, which everyone knows must be solved sooner or later.

Sir John Foster: I have in mind your mention of the debates, Mr. Speaker, so I shall say only two sentences. I hope that the Minister will consider that in a modern economy to leave anything empty means a loss of productivity. Therefore, he must come forward with some solution.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I, too, shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind your wise words to us, in endorsing what my hon. Friends have already said.
We have put forward many suggestions during the passage of the Bill, a number of which the Government have accepted as helpful. This Clause has more sound common sense to it than any other suggestion that we have made, yet we do not seem to have got through to the Government that while it is a very modest proposal it is very sensible. It can do no one any harm as far as I can see, and it can do a great deal of good in a limited number of cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) emphasised the limited nature of the new Clause. We do not pretend that it is important, but the fact that it is limited in nature does not mean that it does not deserve the attention of Parliament where a situation has arisen as a result of legislation introduced by the present Government, for reasons which they have felt to be good and just, in which the owners of a small number of houses do not know what to do with them. As my hon. Friend has said, the soundest and wisest course for most farmers in this situation is to leave the house empty. This must be wrong from every national point of view as well as from the individual's point of view.
We are not asking for a great deal. My hon. Friends have asked that the matter be looked at again so that these cases can be taken care of. I reinforce their argument. We should look at the matter completely dispassionately and consider the problem of any individual or any individual estate owner faced with the problem of owning a house that he would like to see utilised, yet knowing that if he lets go of possession under the law as it stands he might not be able to regain it when it was very necessary to do so in the interests of the land and the farm.
Ministers must concede that here is an overwhelming case. It concerns a very small number of individuals, but they deserve help from the Government. I ask that Ministers look at the matter again and reassure us that if they cannot do anything now they will introduce an

Amendment in another place to deal with the problem.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Since our Committee debates we have given considerable thought to the new Clause. We discussed it fairly fully in Committee, when I explained some of the difficulties.
Although the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has suggested that the drafting does not matter, the Clause goes far wider than its supporters intended. I think that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said that it would apply to any house that had ever been occupied by anyone in agriculture. When we pass legislation it must apply as drafted, and it is not easy to define the type of house to be covered.
It is almost impossible to define the class of house hon. Members want to come under the Clause. As I said in Committee, it makes no exception for the ex-farmer or his widow, particularly under our amalgamation scheme. There would have to be words inserted into any Clause to clear them and to clear a house that had been out of agriculture for many years. So we would go on and on trying to find legislation. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) is a member of the legal profession, and he must see the difficulty we should be in in trying to formulate a Clause to meet what hon. Members want.
I do not see that I can go any further than I went in Committee in explaining the matter to the House.

Sir J. Foster: Would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of doing what hon. Members on this side want if we can draft it?

Mr. Mackie: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am in favour of not having houses empty. But I have been in this position myself, and the right course for people fortunate enough to have more houses than they need is to make up their minds what to do with them. I know the arguments about wanting them in a year or 20 years. That is one of our difficulties in framing any sort of Clause to cover the space of time involved. But owners can sell or they can let at a lower rent. Farmers can let a farmhouse to a


farm worker and let his house under Case 12. There are several ways of getting out of the difficulty. We cannot accept this situation and bring in legislation to deal with these few cases.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but after having listened to the excellent and persuasive speeches from this side of the House I have felt moved to do so. We all respect the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he is courteous and knowledgeable and we have singled him out among Ministers. But instead of speaking his own mind tonight he has somehow had wrapped around his neck a Parliamentary draftsman and a cautious official adviser.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will loose himself from such embarrassments and say that what has been said from this side of the House is worth looking at again. There is a great deal of wisdom in another place, and with a little bit of good will the Government might come up with a solution. All that the hon. Gentleman has to say is that there is a

point here and that he will do his best, even at this late hour, to secure a sensible provision in the Bill. If he will say that he will look at it he will engender good will which might expedite the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Mackie: To reply very briefly to the hon. Member, the only person with whom I agree on his side of the House is the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who said that we should not have these houses empty. I have given solutions to the problem. We have been advised that legislation would be wrong, and I cannot see how any legislation could be drafted which would not create as many problems as it seeks to avoid.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I had not wished to press this to a Division and I still do not want to, because I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 171.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[7.33 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bessell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Tom
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
Lawler, Wallace
Summers, Sir Spencer


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)




Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wright, Esmond
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Woodnutt, Mark
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Murray, Albert


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Bert


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Henig, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Boston, Terence
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boyden, James
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, Leslie
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Randall, Harry


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Rose, Paul


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowlands, E.


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Ryan, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lee, John (Reading)
Sillars, J.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Snow, Julian


Dobson, Ray
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Thornton, Ernest


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ennals, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Finch, Harold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce



Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Golding, John

New Clause 7

COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF LAND ACQUIRED COMPULSORILY

Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold by agreement to a party possessing compulsory purchase powers, and—

(a) the land is used for the purposes of agriculture within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and is so used by way of a trade or business;
(b) the person carrying on the trade or business is displaced from the land;

(c) where, apart from this section, compensation would be assessed on the agricultural value of the land;

compensation shall be paid by the acquiring party at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent re-instatement.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause was discussed upstairs and settled by the casting vote of the


Chairman. We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to discuss it again, because it concerns a matter of considerable and topical importance. As we have seen in the newspapers today, the inquiry into the siting of the new London Airport has opened. Wherever that airport is to be sited, compensation will have to be arrived at for land that will be compulsorily acquired. The bones of the new Clause are to be found in the last two lines:
compensation shall be paid by the acquiring party at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent re-instatement.
At present there are going out of production to housing schemes, motorways and industrial development generally about 50,000 acres every year, the vast bulk of this land being bought by compulsory purchase. Where property is taken for the benefit of the community, it is right that the seller should be paid the full market price and that he should not be unduly out of pocket if he sets himself up again in business.
I shall not make a long speech on this subject. This is an extremely important matter touching on the law and, not being a lawyer, I am quite incapable of making a speech about the law. The position, I understand, is that the value of the land is what is agreed or determined at the time of the notice to treat. The actual payment, however, is rarely made for two or three years, during which time the price of land has, almost inevitably, risen. The rate of increase in the value of agricultural land over the last 15 years has been 10 per cent. per annum. It has its fluctuations, but that is the broad, fairly long period, rate of increase. Until payment is made to the outgoer, it is virtually impracticable for him to fix himself up with another farm. It follows that the cost of equivalent reinstatement is in practice a good deal higher than the compensation which is paid.
Another point of significance is that any available farm of equivalent size will almost certainly be of greater value to the adjoining farm than to an incomer. Because of the capital required to go into farming today, it is almost certain that the owner of an adjoining farm will be able to afford a higher price for it to work with his own land than will an incomer.
Reference was made in Committee to a legal case which gives judicial support for the view that compensation should be based on the cost of land at the time not of the actual purchase but of the equivalent reinstatement, that is to say, at the time the person gets the new property rather than at the date of the notice to treat. That case was between West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association and the Birmingham Corporation, and concerned a Baptist Chapel. Notice to treat was served in 1947, but the acquisition did not take place until 1961—a considerable time, caused, presumably, by other priorities in the redevelopment of the City of Birmingham. When I quoted that case to the hon. Gentleman, he founded his objection to the new Clause on two points. The first was a speech made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in which he said that the present basis has stood the test of time. I am not firmly convinced that that is a good reason for rejecting a change, if change is needed. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said—and he repeated it with some emphasis—that this case was a peculiar one, and that churches are quite different when it comes to compensation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in this. I quote from the All England Law Report of the judgment by Lord Justice Sellers in 1968:
Whenever re-building (which is the commonest form of reinstatement) is contemplated to replace a building which is compulsorily acquired, some delay would appear to be unavoidable. A new site has to be obtained, frequently from the acquiring authority in whose control lies the building allocation, plans have to be prepared and approved, authority to build has to be obtained, and ultimately a contract has to be placed for the erection of the substituted building. Under the most favourable conditions there must be some delay, measured normally in years rather than months.
Then he went on to say
Whatever may have been the position in 1845 or even in 1919, when a considerable delay between the date of the notice to treat and the final assessment of compensation on a reinstatement basis may not have led to a variation in the amount of assessment, or only relatively small fluctuations up or down whether the calculation was made on the one day or the other, since 1947 the cost of labour and material and the total cost of building has increased so enormously over relatively short periods that compensation fixed at building rates in one year would prove totally inadequate to meet the erection of the same building in the next.


It was held that the compensation should be determined at the cost of reinstatement when the building work could reasonably have been done and not as at the notice to treat.
I feel that there is a case for our new Clause to be accepted. There is nothing exclusively about churches in the judgment. It applies to industrial property and building property in general. Is there any logical reason why it should not apply to land, particularly when a considerable delay and time-lag takes place and the owner of the land may be considerably out of pocket?
There is no doubt that it might be a substantial help and might be an alternative proposition to the new Clause if compensation or a substantial part of it were paid immediately on proof of title. If that were the case, a man could get busy looking for a new farm before having to get out of the old one. Precedents were created for this in settlements when the M1 was built and about 90 per cent. of compensation was paid then on proof of title. But something requires to be done when land is being compulsorily acquired.
There are good grounds in law for our new Clause. If is not accepted, we feel that it should be given most careful consideration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us a rather more comprehensive reply than he did in Committee. He has had time to think about West Midlands Baptist (Trust) Association v. Birmingham City Corporation in the meantime. No doubt he has taken learned advice and I hope that we shall hear it this evening.

Mr. Peter Mills: I should like to support my hon. Friend very strongly on this new Clause. It is both reasonable and sensible and will be needed in the years that lie ahead. It poses a growing problem. It is not a large problem at present, although it assumes large proportions to the individual when it happens. Bearing in mind the tremendous needs of industry, the need for better roads, and so on, more and more good agricultural land will be required. Many of us regret that poorer land cannot be used for these purposes, but unfortunately it is occasionally necessary to use the good agricultural land.

Therefore, proper compensation should be given and one should take into account the cost of equivalent reinstatement.
When these schemes impinge on farms, the whole farming activity is put out of gear and is disjointed. It is difficult to compensate that factor by money, when a farm system that has been going on for a number of years is suddenly put out of gear. What the farmer needs is new land and it is very difficult to acquire.
I hope that I shall be allowed to be a little parochial. In the South-West we are experiencing these problems on an increasing scale because of the impact of road schemes, such as the A30 and the A303, for which large chunks of good agricultural land are to be used. This will mean that farmers will be disturbed on a large scale.
In the South-West we also have the problem of reservoirs and again the tendency, if one is not careful, is to use good agricultural land. I am not, of course, against the supply of water in these reservoirs, which is essential, but I am against the use of such land when poorer land could be used. Again, if land is used for reservoirs the farmer should be compensated in such a way that he has enough money to buy suitable land in order to put back his holding into a viable condition.
Also in the South-West the mining of clay again creates a problem. The first part of the new Clause with which we are dealing mentions land
sold by agreement to a party possessing compulsory purchase powers
Many of the mining companies have those powers and when they are exercised it is not easy for farmers to find suitable land in an area where mining is taking place. I have seen holdings completely split up and it has been difficult for farmers even to continue. If the building of roads and reservoirs and mining operations take place on a large scale this can lead to a reduction in the size of holdings, which is the very thing that we hope will not happen.
I turn to the matter of the rising cost of land. It is an expensive matter when one tries to buy a further 10 acres or so to compensate for land which has been taken away. It is often easier and cheaper to buy a larger home than it is


to buy land to compensate for that which has been taken away. It is difficult to purchase and very costly. That again means that the new Clause is right.
Then there is the problem of replacing buildings. I think back 15 years to when I put up a Dutch barn or some other farm building. When I come to replace it today, I find that costs have risen enormously, especially in the last five years. Buildings must be modern and up-to-date and they are extremely costly. Again, I believe that the new Clause is a sensible answer.
I know that it is difficult to decide what is an equivalent to reinstatement, but, as a practical farmer, the Minister must understand the reason why we have moved the Clause. I hope that he will give it real consideration and not brush it aside as he tended to when we considered the last Amendment. It is worthy of consideration, in view of the growing problem of more and more land being used for purposes which are not agricultural. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at it carefully and give us his views on what is a very important subject.

8.0 p.m.

Sir J. Foster: In the debate on the previous Clause I made a speech lasting about a minute and the Minister was good enough to meet the point. Though his explanation was not entirely satisfactory, what was commendable was that he said it is wrong to have houses empty. I hope that he will be able to start his answer in this case by saying that it is unjust that a person who has compensation fixed in year one should get his money only in year three. In year three, the value of the land will have risen, and the person concerned cannot be reinstated at year one values.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said that this has stood the test of time. However, it has only stood the test of time in the sense that it has not been altered. There are many injustices in English law, as there are in compensation, and I hope that he will agree that this is an injustice.
The hon. Gentleman may then say that this is not the place to cure it and that it is a wider question, or that the Government are seized of it and intend to alter it. I hope that he will say that a

person who is paid compensation two or three years after the value of the land has been fixed inevitably suffers from an injustice.
The rule that the earth was flat stood the test of time until Galileo. The rule that a personal action disappeared with the death of the person bringing it was terribly unjust, but it stood the test of time until about 1936. There was a rule in English law that persons could not be called as witnesses if they were the passengers in a vehicle when there was an accident. That stood the test of time until about 1860. There are many instances in English law where a principle unfortunately has stood the test of time because legislators, especially Government ones, do not bring their minds to hear first of all on whether it is an injustice.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to disabuse his mind of this ultra-conservative principle of a rule standing the test of time. Every principle should be tested by asking whether it is just. One's basic philosophy should be to inquire whether it is kind. That solves all one's ethical, philosophical and religious difficulties. If a rule is unkind, it should be changed.
A person awarded compensation has to wait an extremely long time before it is paid. I hope that the Minister will say that he is taking steps to see that compensation should be paid when the title has been established. It is very unjust to have to wait until the final stage. It is really dishonest, but dishonest on the part of the legislature. A common dispute is where one person owes another £500. It really comes down to a small dispute about the last £10. How many people say, "I cannot pay you the £500 because the last £10 has not been settled"? The only honest way is to pay the £490 and dispute about the £10.
I think that the hon. Gentleman works from a sound ethical framework. I hope that he will start his speech by saying that it is unjust that a person should not get full compensation. Alternatively, if he thinks that it is just, he ought to give his reasons.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I agree with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He said that the Parliamentary


Secretary spoke from a sound ethical framework. Certainly the hon. Gentleman speaks from a sound framework. However, it is up to him to establish whether his attitude to the Clause is also ethical.
The proposal in the Clause would establish a more just régime for the assessment of compensation. I illustrate the point by referring to a case which occurred in my constituency. Hon. Members will remember the Clywedog Reservoir Bill which was introduced into another place. It contained compensation clauses which are those at present found in the Water Resources Act. I thought that they were completely inadequate.
The matter was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, the compensation clauses were changed, and they remained in their changed form when the Bill went through this House. The result was that the dispossessed farmers received compensation which was over and above what was normal and would be allowed under the Water Resources Act. They were compensated not only for the value of the land, but for disturbance.
Having made that observation, I come to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Even though the basis of compensation was so much better than that normally paid, by the time notices to treat were served and the compensation was paid, years had passed. The farmers were all competing for equivalent farms. The result was that they faced not only the normal increase in the value of land—the 10 per cent. which has been referred to—but an additional local increase because they all wanted to stay in the locality. They were competing against each other for the land and, in the event, the generous compensation awarded was just enough to give them the cost of equivalent reinstatement. This is a vitally important matter for the Minister to answer. The justice of the cases met by a Clause of this kind, and certainly I support it.
I come now to another point about rules which have stood the test of time. It is interesting to recall the West Midland Baptist Church case which was referred to so eloquently and with such legal erudition by the hon. Member for Edin-

burgh, West (Mr. Stodart). In the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for many purposes the basis of compensation was the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement. What happened in that case was that the learned Lords Justices were interpreting a provision that this House passed in 1919, when the basis of compensation was the reasonable cost of reinstatement. It is the Government who have gone back. We have become more reactionary since 1919, and today the basis is much more unjust than was provided in Rule 5, Section 2, of that Act.
The point that arises which is of great public importance is that here we have somebody whose land is acquired compulsorily. He or she is not therefore a willing seller. Then, the basis of compensation at the moment is assessed simply on the agricultural value of the land. As we know, in an era of inflation when building and other costs are going up, people who have been dispossessed who need to buy an equivalent farm or something of the kind experience delay in compensation and the result is an injustice. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite would agree in their hearts that this should not happen. If they are going to advise rejection of this Clause, we have the right to demand a full explanation.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: In its effects on people, this new Clause is the most important one. If a farmer has his farm cut about or loses it entirely it affects his family life almost more than anything else in this Bill. More and more farmers over the next few years and as far as one can see into the future will be affected. We are going to have more and more motorways. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred to the widening of the A.303. When I came along there I saw very large acreages of land being taken out of production. Obviously, this meant the splitting up many small farms into pieces incapable of being farmed.
I ask the Government to think very seriously on this matter. We should consider it on the basis that we have a very small minority of people, some 3 to 4 per cent. of this country's population, engaged in farming. Naturally, the rest of the nation, the 97 per cent., must have


land on which to put new motorways, new factories, reservoirs and everything else which will enable the standard of living in this country to go on increasing. It is only right that that small minority should be put back at least into the position in which it started. This is all we are asking, and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will consider that this is a fair and just idea.
In Committee, I referred to a particular case of a farm being split into two pieces and some 30 acres were being taken for motorway widening. I now know of another case where only five acres are being taken out of an 80 acre farm, leaving 30 acres on one side and 45 acres on the other. The Parliamentary Secretary was wrong when he corrected himself in referring, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to four years' compensation, because I believe it is five years.

Mr. Mackie: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, as he is in the job, normal compensation is one or two years, and then I spoke of the other four; so it could be six years or five years.

Mr. Hawkins: I did not read it like that, even after the correction, but I now understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I do not think the number is either one or two, because we altered the legislation two years ago to make it five or six years. I believe the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that, although it does not matter very much. Supposing the farm was let at £8 an acre. In my estimation, the only compensation that the tenant of this holding will get for having five acres taken out of his farm and having his farm split into two pieces will be five acres at £8 per acre times 5 years' purchase, which comes to £200. Very probably that farmer will have to give up whatever he was then farming, perhaps a dairy herd, and will never receive enough compensation for the splitting of his holding into two pieces. I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that payment of compensation of that kind is not justifiable. For the owner-occupier there is better compensation, because he will receive the full amount for the land taken, the capital value. He receives compensation for the land split and can be far better compensated for the loss.
8.15 p.m.
The other matter which I raised in Committee, which was also raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), is the question of slow payment. Time and time again one finds one's client who has had his land taken, because of the process of government between the legal authorities, the lawyer in the Ministry and his own lawyer, having to wait three years before receiving the money and being in a position to go out and buy another holding. This is a practical point. The process could be speeded up by having payment on exchange of contracts or payment of, say, three quarters of the sum, or something of that nature.
Farmers are in a very small minority. They must provide all the land for the amenities of the nation in the future and in my opinion it is only right that they should be put back into the position where they can earn as much money as they did in their previous situation.

Sir David Renton: Whitehall once used to have a tilting yard, where Henry VIII received a serious injury when jousting. There is no tilting yard there now. Instead—and I am not making a party point—a game is played of "Knock the farmer". Unfortunately, this has been played for some years. One of the ways in which he has been knocked in recent years is through the notional capital gains tax. But for many more years than that the farmer has been knocked by not receiving adequate compensation for compulsory dispossession; and it is because this new Clause will go very far to relieve that injustice that I would like to support it.
I do not need to labour the point, already well made, that the injustice is basically due to the fact that compensation is based simply on the agricultural value of the land which the farmer is leaving, valued at the time at which notice to treat is first served. That is the basic trouble. But it goes further than that in those cases in which there is a delay after notice to treat and and in paying compensation. Experience has shown that in many cases—and there are cases in my own constituency which I have in my mind which followed the


building of a reservoir—compensation as paid at present is not sufficient to enable the farmer to take on another farm of equivalent size, producing equivalent income, whether he becomes a tenant or in some other way—even in days of low interest rates with the aid of a bank. That is a most unjust situation.
I know of farmers who have had to give up farming because the compensation was not good enough. I know of another farmer who had to take on as a tenant something like one-eighth of the amount of land he had before and there he went in for intensive farming on a very much smaller scale.
There is a second reason why I think that the new Clause should be supported, and I ask the Government to bear it in mind because it is of great importance for the future. With the large-scale developments required by modern society larger areas of land are being compulsorily purchased all at once or, at any rate, within a shorter time than used to be the case.
Motorways are an obvious example. Fortunately, the acquisition of the land is spread over a long line of country. On the other hand, a reservoir may require several thousand acres to be taken all at once and the farmers in that area have to go scrambling away looking for somewhere else, perhaps in competition with each other. I have seen this happen.
But we have in the offing a far bigger project than any that I have mentioned—the prospect of a third London Airport requiring 100 square miles of land, nearly all of it farm land. That area, 10 miles by 10 miles, will be used partly for runways, but also—pardon the phrase—for the associated conurbation. The prospect of that happening is frightening. It may not frighten the Minister, but it certainly frightens me.
What will happen to the farmers in that 100 square miles of mainly farm land when they go looking for somewhere else to earn their living as farmers, which is generally the only living they know? If they are to be compensated merely on the agricultural use value of the land at the time they receive a notice to treat for compulsory purchase and if there is a delay of some years before the last of

them is pushed out, they will not be able to re-establish themselves elsewhere.
I believe that this, or something like this, new Clause which, in a modest way, still leaves a degree of discretion to the authorities and the quasi-judicial bodies which have to consider these matters, will have to come forward if there are to be large-scale dispossessions. That is why I think that my hon. Friends have done a great service not only for farming, but also for the credibility of modern government by putting forward the new Clause. I hope that the Minister will give it a favourable reception.

Mr. Peyton: I support every word of the most eloquent speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Though he rightly referred to motorways and reservoirs, nevertheless there is the nightmare thought of what will happen to the hundreds of farmers who will be displaced by the construction of a third London Airport. Some of the estimations on the cost of the airport might be quite wrong because of the inadequate compensation allowed to farmers who are dispossessed.
I was greatly moved by the two speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He made one good speech for himself and the beginning of an even better speech for the Minister. I hope that the Minister in his reply will exercise that virtue of which we know he is capable, but which is rare in Ministers, namely, humility, and take from my hon. and learned Friend the admirable start to his speech with which he was presented.
I should particularly like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the plight of farmers in the South-West. Though we welcome the hard won conversion of the Ministry of Transport to the fact that narrow jungle paths are not adequate highways for the West Country and that progress is now being made towards the construction of adequate roads, certain farmers, merely by chance or perhaps by a lottery, happen to be in the way of these desirable constructions. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the greatest damage is usually done to the farmer with the smaller holding. I


know of no provision to compensate him adequately. All I know is that if the holding survives on both sides of a double carriage-way road the enormous addition in cost and the waste time involved is extremely serious.
Recently a man in my constituency asked me for advice on how he should conduct a herd of cows from one side of his farm to the other across a double carriageway road. I do not think that either the Lord Chancellor or any other Minister is capable of giving such a farmer advice on running his holding or of estimating and giving adequate compensation for the damage done to it.
I hope that the justice of this reasonable new Clause will be recognised and that farmers who are displaced by developments urgently required by the community will not be made the victims of public need. No one denies that public need must be met, but it is unjustifiable that individual farmers should be singled out to carry the burden of the public good. We all accept that if there is a requirement for a road, a reservoir or an airport, the burden of providing it should be shared. It should not just land on the unfortunate farmer who, in addition to everything else, will lose his home.
I warmly and enthusiastically support this modest new Clause. I hope that when the Minister replies he will prove to the House and to the country that he is as much moved by the thought of injustice to an individual as by inconvenience to the official Establishment. I do not find official inconvenience as moving a consideration as individual injustice.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I suppose that as recently as 13 days ago there would not have been as many as six hon. Members of this House who could have pointed out on the map a locality called Stake Ness. I certainly could not, although it is within my constituency. Thirteen days ago it was announced that a nuclear power station would be built there in the near future, and the entire area is very grateful that that will be so. It would bring enormous benefit in the shape of development to the area at large.
I support the Clause partially in view of this development because in my view

the matter of compensation works most hardly on tenant farmers. This point has already been stressed. In the case of the Stake Ness project there will be about 92 acres of a farm taken away. It will mean the loss of the steading, the house and a large part of the land. The farmer is a tenant farmer. The amounts of compensation have already been referred to. How on earth this man will be able to reinstate himself as a farmer elsewhere given delays, given the difficulties of claims, and all the rest, in a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner on the present level of compensation, I cannot understand. It would be impossible for him to do.
As other of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, in many cases—and the Stake Ness project is among them—the development which will follow from the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the whole community. In this case there will be a vast generation of economic electricity. Why on earth should not the entire beneficiaries of that give some better form of compensation, as is outlined in this Clause, to such cases as I have in mind?
The matter goes further than that. Not only will the actual site be necessary but there will be a great deal of extra infrastructure necessary. Not only one farmer will be affected by this but a great many others as well in the vicinity and in the approaches, and there will be the erection of houses, both permanent and temporary, for the construction staff and for the permanent staff who will man the project when it is completed.
I have great faith in the hon. Gentleman who is about to reply. I am quite sure that he understands the difficulties, both as a practical farmer and as a Minister, and I sincerely trust that he will give a favourable reply at this stage. If not, would be give the House an assurance that when the Bill goes to another place he and his right hon. Friend will by then have come to a decision which will be in equity fair to tenant farmers particularly and to all farmers who have to give up their land for the general weal of the country?

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am reluctant to join in this short debate with the firepower of our best legal brains giving their opinions on such an intricate and important matter.


But I say humbly as a practising farmer—or until recently one, and one with a substantial connection with the National Farmers Union—that I found this problem to be one of the most difficult and intractible problems of the lot.
The county where I lived—Worcestershire—borders on Birmingham with all its development, and we had this problem possibly more than any other as this great city expanded towards us with its roads, motorways, reservoirs and other development. I think it must be fair to say that compulsory purchase, whether of farmland or of shop frontage or of building, creates a personal and sometimes a financial problem. But in agricultural land we have a very special case.
Agricultural land cannot be created; it cannot be manufactured. It is inevitable that it is the best land that is taken. People do not build motorways deliberately over the mountain tops or put new towns in marginal areas. This is where agriculture must plead a special case.
I do not think that we have perhaps always considered the plight of the tenant in these compensation matters. The owner-occupier may be paid a sum which would enable him to go out and purchase another farm. I accept, and will elaborate on the fact, that this sum is usually inadequate under the present legislation but a tenant is in a special difficulty. Tenancies have been incredibly difficult to obtain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that some landlords have frequently found 100 or 150 applicants for good land to let. It is this difficulty that the displaced tenant immediately finds himself up against.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned the hon. Gentleman's correction of his own statement. I am sorry but I still cannot make sense of the correction. I appreciate that language may be a difficulty to him in view of his birth place, but it is extremely difficult for us if we cannot even get corrections correct. But that is perhaps typical of the way the Bill has been conducted. Perhaps in his reply the hon. Gentleman will be specific about existing compensation for tenant farmers. I do not believe that

the House has yet heard the correct answer.
I mentioned in Committee the rather special cases which arose when the M50 was built across common land on the borders of Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, where the ownership was so indeterminate that the district valuer felt that the best method of compensation was to purchase, no doubt at market price, an equivalent area of land to add to the common land. So the principle of reinstatement which is what the new Clause is about is not wholly without precedent, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), with his usual perception, mentioned the motorways which are at last coming to the West Country and are, indeed, bisecting almost completely my constituency.
We have on the whole been fortunate over compensation, I believe, in that the district valuer, underpaid, overworked and under-staffed like nearly all district valuers, has done his best. But we have still had these unfortunate cases where small farms have been bisected, with crossing places naturally placed as infrequently as the Ministry can get away with. The consequent damage to the business of a man affected has been irreparable.
In Committee, the Minister stated an argument against the proposal in this new Clause which I find hard to accept. He suggested that if we were to pay higher compensation the extra money placed in the purchasing side of the land market would force the price of land up and would have a snowball effect, as he called it. In making that statement he himself admits the error of the present system. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) stated—and I was contesting the seat at the time that Clywedog was being built—the compensation was one of the most cheerful features of that construction. Even there, by the time the farmers came to replace their land, there was no question of profit. It was merely reinstatement.
There is failure to appreciate that, if one takes 40,000 or 50,000 acres of land a year from a pool which cannot be enlarged, the cost will inevitably go up. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil mentioned airports. There is a factor involved in all this which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) tried to deal with in a Private Member's


Bill recently—that of worsenment. I believe that farmers suffer from worsenment in their day-to-day lives and in their working places as much as any other section of the community.
One has only to think here of the unfortunate people who attempt to farm around major urban areas or around some of our motorways and new towns to realise what they have to put up with. I cannot see any argument, in all honesty and British justice, against this new Clause. It is only fair that a farmer, whether tenant or owner occupier, deprived for the benefit of the community of the tools of his trade should in all equity be allowed to replace them. I have absolutely no doubt that we must have this Clause if we are not to continue to suffer this injustice.

Mr. Mackie: I should first and foremost deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and pinpointed by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Is this an injustice or is it not? Is law that has stood the test of time for 50 years necessarily now good or bad, or is it still effective? I think it was the later Doctor Joad who qualified everything by saying, "It depends what you mean by injustice". It is an unjust world and today, as one hon. Member said, there is an agricultural population of 3 per cent. almost at the mercy of the other 97 per cent. There will be injustices whatever we do. To use a biblical term, it is the Government's task to see that these injustices are leavened—injustices which must exist in an industrial country like ours to an agricultural community. This is what we are trying to do. I do not suppose that will satisfy the legal side, as was well expressed by one hon. Gentleman. I am not a lawyer, but we are doing our best to see that the situation is leavened.
The purpose of the Clause is to see that farmers get fair compensation when their land is taken from them. We all agree on this. The Government are just as keen to see this done as the Opposition. I have some corrections to make. In the debate in Committee I was making a point, mentioned by the hon. Member

for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), regarding exactly what happens when farmers are dispossessed. Many Members have emphasised the size of this problem and the fact that it is growing. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) mentioned the number of square miles of aerodrome and new roads. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) mentioned power stations in his constituency, and so on.
In the Committee debate I instanced my own parish where I was told by local farmers who were bidding for a 150-acre farm that someone from Milton Keynes had come along and had outbid them. Those who were dealing with the Milton Keynes' issue were anxious that I should not make the point that farmers were too well dealt with. I asked that the matter should be investigated. The farmer did not come from Milton Keynes but another area where he had been taken over by industrial development. It reinforced my point that here was a situation where a farmer came along, having been well compensated in this particular case, and had outbid local farmers. Such farmers have good compensation, better than those coming from an area like Milton Keynes where they would receive the agricultural value for their land rather than the industrial or development value. I made this point because the Farmers' Union did not want me to suggest that Milton Keynes farmers were being overpaid.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could not understand my correction in col. 1051. It is absolutely straightforward. The word "either" was wrong; it should have read:
…under the new legislation—passed two years ago—other four years' compensation or all the rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 10th March, 1970; c. 1051]

Mr. Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman would check, he would find that the words are "for all the rent" among other things. I still do not think that that makes sense.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mackie: Yes, four years' compensation for all the rent and, multiplied, that is how it works out. I admitted that in this Committee we had a lot of corrections and argument. That seems to be


quite clear. This compensation, we are all agreed, should be fair and the sponsors of the Clause will agree that the significant words are "the cost of equivalent reinstatement". What we both want to ensure is that a man who is dispossessed should, so far as money can do it, be made neither better nor worse off than if he remained in possession. We are discussing not whether this should be done, but how it should be done.
Should we consider what it actually costs each farmer to set himself up in a new farm? To take the case I mentioned in Committee, supposing a farmer from the Milton Keynes area, or any area which is being compulsorily acquired, came to my parish and said, "This is the same size of farm from which I have been dispossessed, and this is what someone has paid for it and this is what I should be paid." This would be on the reinstatement value, but if that figure were excessive, who would decide? It has been said that district valuers are overworked and sometimes take a long time. This would create further delays in finding what a farmer meant by reinstatement value.
Or should we consider what his old farm would be worth on the open market if it had been sold at his own choice? It has been said that some farmers do not want to sell on compulsory purchase. Should we pay such a farmer that amount plus the incidental cost of having to move? The old law is clear on this point. It has been in force for over 50 years and it was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, only last month. The proper basis for compensation when land is taken is the open market value of that land, as long as there is a market value which can be ascertained for that class of land.
There are special cases, and one famous one has been quoted. I noticed legal tomes being passed around so that hon. Members could refresh themselves on it. In cases like churches, for example, there is no general market value and one has to resort to some other method of assessment to give much the same result.
This is where the cost of equivalent reinstatement comes in—not because it

is thought to be the best way of assessing compensation, but because, in these special cases where there is no ordinary market value, it is the only way available. We discussed this in Standing Committee and the famous case was mentioned of the West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association v. the Birmingham Corporation. This illustrates my point. The property had no general use in the market and the compensation for it had therefore to be assessed on the equivalent reinstatement value of rebuilding the church.
I am amazed that hon. Members do not seem to have taken the point of real importance in this case—that it lay in establishing a new date for the assessment of compensation, that we no longer go back to the date of the notice to treat to establish the value, but take a current date when dispossession takes place, or when the compensation is actually assessed, if that is earlier.
This happens in all cases—not just in special cases like churches. It applies to agricultural land. This answers the question about farmers not being able to go ahead and take land on the basis of the compensation which they would get. It also meets the point about a bridging loan. It also means that in many cases, 90 per cent. can be paid in advance of the figure mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich. I have had experience of lawyers in this respect, and they are the greatest sinners. If there is an argument about the payment of, say, £500, they will hold back the last £10 or £15. I recall a case in particular, when I said that if they did not "cough up" with the money I would raise the matter in the House.

Sir J. Foster: I hope that the Minister's words will be heeded by the Inland Revenue, which always does what he is describing.

Mr. Mackie: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I would be one of the first to urge payment of anything that was really owed by them.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members on both sides were agreed over the principle of wishing to put the farmer back into his original position as far as that could be done by money. However, he has not mentioned the tenant farmer. For example, will


this £200 compensate him for a split farm and the loss of, say, five acres?

Mr. Mackie: I am dealing with the points as they arose in the debate, and I will be coming to that.
I was about to deal with the time-lag and the importance of people being able to lay their hands on money due to them so that they may become reinstated. It was said that I did not give a considered reply on this issue in Committee. While I accept that the length of one's speech does not necessarily mean that one made a good speech, I remind hon. Members that my speech on that occasion occupied seven columns in HANSARD. Whether or not I satisfied hon. Members on this matter, I do not know.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and others pinpointed the problem, and I assure the House that we appreciate both the problem and its size. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that we have brushed the matter aside. The fact that I am giving a considered reply on this occasion shows that we have carefully examined the matter.
Having dealt with the somewhat philosophical argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich, I come to the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, of a reservoir the name of which I undoubtedly cannot pronounce. In that case, of the reservoir at Clywedog, a provision provided for extra payments to be made in certain cases. That is irrelevant to the new Clause, which tries to introduce equivalent reinstatement. However, the compensation is still based on market value. I believe I see the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) smiling, no doubt thinking that, in due course, some corrections will have to appear in HANSARD. He is probably right.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also mentioned that seldom in compulsory purchase issues were there willing sellers. However, a valuation is always taken as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. He also wanted me to keep in mind the question of possible injustice.
A similar aspect was raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins)—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for

Banff also spoke on this issue—which is the question of compensation for split farms. This can be given in various ways. A tenant whose farm is being split can get compensation for severance and injurious affection. This is under Section 22 of the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965. It also provides that a tenant can have reassessment of his rent. Something is also allowed for a farm being split, but that is a different point from the one we are discussing. Advance payments have been and can be made up to 90 per cent.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that he knew farmers who had to give up farming because they could not get farms. What sort of a Clause would we have to put in to pay re-instatement value because a farmer could not find a farm? When a big area is taken over for a reservoir, all the farmers may be scrambling in competition and they put up the market value, but that is the market value of the land which they would be paid but there is not the time lag that there used to be.
The hon. Member for Yeovil spoke about splitting of farms and suggested that the smaller farmer was harder hit, but he can get extra compensation for injurious affection. The hon. Member for Banff and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West suggested that tenant farmers are not so well treated, but it is difficult to say whether this is the case. The average rent in the country is very low, under £5 an acre, but in some cases it is higher. In the case of a 200 acre farm with a rent of £8 an acre, which is not a high rent, full compensation for six years amounts to about £10,000. That is in addition to the live and dead stock and tenant right to reinstate the tenant in another farm. It is considerably more than was obtained before and it should be sufficient to reinstate a farmer.

Mr. Wiggin: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if the £10,000 were invested it would have to be an extremely attractive investment to produce what the farm would produce in the first place?

Mr. Mackie: I shall not go into arguments about how to invest one's money. It was once said that if I had invested


all that I spent on farming in the last 20 years I would be much better off, but I would not be much happier.
We are very conscious of the difficulties and the problems. Although I have been fortunate never to have been compulsorily taken over in any farms that I have farmed, I know that I should not like that to happen. The situation is such in this industrial country that these things would have to take place. We like Ito continue giving compensation in the way it is being done, with the cost of moving and disturbance. To try to do it in any other way would run us into difficulties. I hope that hon. Members are now satisfied in the light of these explanations and replies to the points they have made and that they will not press for this Clause.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has let us down very badly. My hon. Friends have one after another expressed their faith in him. When we debated the Bill last week I said that we always had faith and hope in him and charity for him. But by merely saying that he is appreciative of the problem and conscious of the difficulties he has not satisfied us.
I did not realise what a torrent of legal expertise and eloquence I would unleash. That, combined with the very sound practical knowledge with which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) always provides us, gave the Minister a pretty formidable case to answer. In Committee he rested his reply on two points. He said that higher compensation pushes up the price of land and that therefore what we

suggest would do no good. I do not agree. What pushes up the price of land is its growing scarcity owing to the 50,000 acres a year going out of production, and not the extra compensation that we suggest.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the present system has stood the test of time. That argument was very effectively demolished by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who posed the succinct question whether the present state of affairs was fair and just. He asked whether injustice was being allowed. To that the hon. Gentleman replied that it is an unjust world and that there must be injustice whatever the Government do. All that he suggested was that the Government were dealing with the situation as best they could.

The new Clause would lessen the injustices now being perpetrated. One thing that is absolutely certain is that inflation is biting more savagely now than ever before. Therefore, the time lag we have been discussing between the notice to treat and the payment being made is a much more serious issue than it has been.

Evehy hon. Member who has spoken has referred to the new Clause as being reasonable. There has been no opposition to it from the Government benches, and we may assume that silence means consent. I hope that my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby in favour of the Clause.

Question put:—

Tile House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 178.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[9.2 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, Henry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clegg, Walter
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorna)
Goodhart, Philip


Bessell, Peter
Crouch, David
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert


Biffen, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Body, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brewis, John
Eden, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hiley, Joseph


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fortescue, Tim
Hill, J. E. B.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Holland, Philip




Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John
More, Jasper
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony


Iremonger, T. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Waddington, David


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


King, Tom
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, John
Walters, Dennis


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lubbock, Eric
Prior, J. M. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


McMaster, Stanley
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Wright, Esmond


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, N. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James



Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Boston, Terence
Hannan, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horner, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert


Coleman, Donald
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Orme, Stanley


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Finch, Harold
MacDermot, Niall
Sillars, J.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McElhone, Frank
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben









Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thornton, Ernest
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James



Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.

New Clause 8

CONTROL OF CHEMICALS IN FEEDING STUFFS FOR ANIMALS

By a date not more than six months from the passing of this Act the Ministers shall make regulations for the purpose of establishing a register of chemical substances which may not be used at sub-therapeutic levels in animal feeding stuffs.

For the purpose of this section "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly: and "animal" has the same meaning as in section 65 of this Act.—[Mr. Kitson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is to implement one of the main recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine which was presented to Parliament in November, 1969. In recent years the medical profession, the veterinary profession and the agricultural industry have been considering the possible dangers of drug resistance and what safeguards should be introduced to control the use of antibiotics as food additives and in veterinary medicine. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern that the Government should take action to control the situation. Many of us believe that it is necessary for the Government to state what controls or safeguards they intend to introduce to implement the recommendations of Professor Swann's Committee.
In 1950 research had shown that it was possible by the addition of small amounts of antibiotics in animal feeds to get a faster growth rate and better conversion rates into meat and other products. The use of specific antibiotics in restricted amounts to promote growth in certain classes of livestock was therefore permitted, and it has been the common practice in Britain since 1953.
In the late 1950s it became apparent that there was an increase in the inci-

dence of strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics in both the medical and the veterinary professions. The Agricultural and Medical Research Councils recognised the potential dangers and set up a joint committee under the chairmanship of Lord Netherthorpe to examine the possible consequences of the feeding of antibiotics to farm animals and to consider whether this use constitutes any danger to human or animal health. That committee reported in January, 1962 stating that it saw no reason to discontinue the permitted usage of feed additives and recommended that the use of additives could be extended to young calves. However, the committee also recommended that it was necessary to watch the situation as it developed.
Then in 1961 a new situation arose. Scientists in Japan, at Tokyo University, discovered a new medical phenomenon which is now called infectious or transferable drug resistance, sometimes known as infective or transmissible drug resistance. This resistance had two disturbing features. It was multiple and concerned the drug employed against bacillary dysentery such as streptomycin, chloramphenicol, tetracyclines and sulphonamides and it was infectious; that is to say, all the resistance could be transmitted from one bacteria strain to another by contact. So it spread like an epidemic in a formerly sensitive strain.
There is little doubt that this form of drug resistance emerges in human intestinal bacteria as a result of the use of antibiotics in man, and Professor Swann in his report emphasises these dangers.
Then in 1965 a further risk was exposed, that if the spread of drug resistant bacteria from animals to man. Salmonella typimurium is an organism which causes infectious diarrhoea with high mortality in calves and food poisoning in man. In efforts to control the disease antibiotics were freely administered to infected and apparently uninfected animals, both therapeutically and as food additives.
Predictably, Type 29 became progressively more drug resistant and strains ultimately appeared that had acquired transferable resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, neomycin, kananycin, tetracycline and sulphonamides, and resistant strains of Type 29 were communicated to man. It was on the basis of these observations that a re-examination of the whole question of the use of antibiotics and other drugs in the rearing of livestck was called for.
As far back as 1957, Dr. Smith of the Animal Health Trust in Essex predicted this situation. In my own constituency some of my constituents developed gastro-enteritis only three years ago. The House may remember that 15 children died in a maternity hospital because they were resistant to eight of the 11 known antibiotics which were in use. The House was never allowed to see the report because the Minister felt that it was too complicated. Shortly afterwards there was a serious outbreak in Lancashire where more than 20 children died in maternity hospitals in Bootle. Again, we do not know where or how that drug resistance developed.
The Swann Committee's Report in paragraph 9 on page 43—and I am afraid this is rather a long quotation—said:
Thus it is certain that the use of an antibiotic in animal feed produces large numbers of resistant organisms, including organisms with transferable resistance, and that these resistant organisms may be transmitted to man. The potential dangers of the wide spread of resistance to therapeutic antibiotics have been sufficiently set out earlier in this report. We were told that the use of an antibiotic in animal feed often means that the antibiotic will be ineffective (because of the development of resistance) for the treatment of clinical disease of the animals, but apart from this we were urged that no definite ill-effect has been shown from this use, as distinct from the other uses of antibiotics. That this may be so does not mean, however, that there has been no ill-effect, still less that there will never be any ill-effect if therapeutic antibiotics continue to be added to animal feeds. We judge that there are grave potential disadvantages for animal and human health in adding in this way to the pool of organisms which are resistant to the antibiotics of most value for the treatment of disease.
The report goes on to make recommendations for controls which we hope that the Clause in some way covers.
These reasons alone justify the implementation of the Clause. I have studied the problem, recognising, as a farmer, that the controls in the Clause will create difficulties and additional costs to the farming industry, and I believe that the additional costs will be very much higher than those set out in the Swann Committee's Report. But I genuinely believe that, at the moment, we are using antibiotics haphazardly without facing the dangers that we are creating for human health.
There are those who have commercial interests in supplying the farming industry with large quantities of antibiotics and will be opposed to the Clause. There are those in this trade who argue that the scientific grounds upon which Professor Swann made his recommendations are inadequate and who now call for a further inquiry into the scientific evidence on which the Swann Committee based its recommendations. But there are also those in the trade who believe that there are enough danger signals around to adopt all or any of the recommendations in the Swann Report which the Government decide to implement.
It is true to say that these arguments will go on, almost inevitably. There will be those who disagree with the evidence. Very often in a large organisation there are those who disagree with scientific evidence produced by other sections of their organisation.
It can be argued that if we adopt these controls we shall put our farmers at a commercial disadvantage with our overseas competitors. However, many countries are looking to us and may very well follow our example. I would like to have moved a Clause implementing the whole of the Swann recommendations, but we recognise the difficulties that this might create. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming and say how far and how soon he is prepared to go in dealing with the existing situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is the third of 53 debates which will take place during the night before we come to Third Reading. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

Mr. Julian Snow: I listened with care to the


hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson). I admired his presentation of the facts, though I am not altogether in agreement with him about the causation and history of the outbreak of gastro-enteritis among infants which occurred in 1968. My recollection is that there was no question of resistance to antibiotics which had been transmitted in some form. It was a matter of finding the right antibiotic, and there were certain weaknesses in nursing which came out in the evidence. In fact, all the information was distributed to the medical profession. It was a very technical matter, but I think that we gleaned a great deal of information from that experience.
My doubt about the Clause is in no way concerned with that. I wonder whether the Clause is necessary. I notice that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is present. He will recall the long sittings in the spring and summer of 1968 when we discussed a relatively uncontroversial Bill which is now the Medicines Act, 1968. He will remember that there was then a great deal of discussion about the incorporation of drugs into feeding-stuffs. My recollection is that it was not confined to fears about antibiotics but also about hormones used for veterinary purposes. Quite apart from the danger of transference of resistance, there is the other equally alarming side which causes alarm and despondency to consumers of undue, unnecessary and undesirable absorption of hormones.
Under Sections 40 to 43 of the 1968 Act, there appeared to be adequate safeguards against the danger which has been foreseen or against which it is considered necessary to protect the public. In dealing with the product licensing system, which my hon. Friend perhaps will confirm is now in operation, there should be adequate safeguards to prevent these products being unwittingly fed to live stock unless it is clearly under the control of the Department concerned. Under Section 130 there are adequate safeguards for the proper packaging, labelling and other kinds of alerting information which must be used in connection with feeding-stuffs so qualified.
I would have thought, therefore, that it is very undesirable to introduce a new

Clause like this, although I absolutely accept the motive for putting it forward, because the powers already exist. I would have thought we should not add unnecessarily to the kind of information farmers have to absorb as to the state of legislation on the subject.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I would like strongly to support this new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) in introducing it mentioned possible adverse economic effects. I realise those, of course. The Swann Report did not recommend that chloramphenicol and polymyxins be restricted to humans only; and perhaps like other hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen in this House I am by no means expert on this subject. Therefore, I took the step of consulting an epidemiologist, a medical micro-biologist of international repute at present working in this country. I would submit to the House that to neglect this eminent man's view would be the height of folly.
I am told that without restriction on chloramphenicol and polymyxins we place man in a particularly dangerous position. Chloramphenicol remains the most effective drug to fight typhoid and paratyphoid together with certain other infections occasionally encountered in hospitals. In addition, polymyxins are the last remaining reliable treatment for enteropathogenic escherichia coli infections in babies. This is an extremely serious situation. On page 65 of the Swann Report there is a table for the usage of antibiotics. It shows quite clearly that polymyxins in Group III antibiotics have only recently been used in veterinary medicine and as feed additives, and that in very small amounts. It seems to me and certainly to my informant that there must be strict limits to these agents in veterinary medicine in the future. It is not possible to compromise. There must either be a complete restriction of use in veterinary medicine and feed additives or complete freedom of usage by all, including farmers and veterinary surgeons.
9.30 p.m.
The important point—again, I rely on my informant—is to get this carried out quickly. The new Clause may not be adequately worded, but something needs


to be done urgently to protect the community. We must, in the view of my informant, provide a substantial degree of safety for humans at once. The consequence of such action would mean that the other recommendations of Swann could be enforced more slowly than is otherwise possible and with more consideration of the economic factors involved. This, in turn, would alleviate, to a certain extent at any rate, the financial and other hardships which might otherwise arise in the farming community.
The onus is on the Government to protect people, not least the youngest members of the population. I very much hope that the Government will accept the new Clause or, if not its actual wording, the spirit of it.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to the Swann Report. In the "Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations" on page 60, paragraph 12.2 contains the positive statement:
It is clear that there has been a dramatic increase over the years in the number of strains of enteric bacteria of animal origin which show resistance to one or more antibiotics. Further"—
this is the important part—
these resistant strains are able to transmit this resistance to other bacteria. This resistance has resulted from the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and other purposes in farm livestock.
That is a positive statement which underlines what I have said. I hope that the Government will accept the new Clause.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) for bringing in this new Clause and allowing us to discuss the matter. Since publication of the Swann Report we have not had an opportunity to discuss its details and we shall not have much opportunity this evening.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) made the point that under the Medicines Act, 1968, it is possible for the Government, if they wish, to bring in regulations to control the use of antibiotics. I do not know whether the Government intend to do so. I hope that we shall hear, before the end of the debate, whether they will accept my hon. Friend's new Clause or bring in regulations. I understand that

they have circularised the chemical industry, which produces the necessary antibiotics, saying that they intend to bring in regulations on 1st July. It would be a courtesy to the House if, when replying, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an outline of the kind of thinking that will be embodied in the regulations concerning the control of antibiotics.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks is that there is anxiety and danger whether immunity to bacteria in animals, because of the feeding of antibiotics over a period at sub-therapeutic level, can be transferred to humans who can be put at hazard by contracting a disease and not be able to be treated by the normal antibiotic.
The difficulty is that for every expert like Professor Swann who puts one view, there is another equally eminent expert who is prepared to give completely contrary evidence. For instance, an extremely eminent man, Professor Chain, who was involved in the discovery of penicillin, refutes in rather strong language the evidence which Professor Swann purports to use in coming to the conclusion in his report. I shall not weary the House by going through all the various eminent scientists on either side who can be produced to speak for and against this particular problem which the House is facing of immunity of bacteria being transferred from animals to humans. The point is really that the case has not been completely proven. There is still a wide field for further research and there is still a wide field for further, deeper study.
There are certain points upon which all the experts agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) mentioned one of them in his short and interesting speech when he was talking about chloramphenicol. I have not met a single expert, scientist or other, who was prepared to say that this should not be banned and the recommendation of Professor Swann should be brought in at the earliest possible moment. He suggests the danger to human life through its use on animals, particularly sheep, was completely intolerable. This is one of the recommendations which I think is unanimous.
What I ask the Government to do in thinking about this new Clause is to consider whether they can publish the evidence, not only that produced by Professor Swann which we had in the report, but at the same time and in the same volume the evidence of the other side—the evidence of people like Professor Chain. There is no difficulty in the Government finding these gentlemen. They have come forward and I have attended symposiums, meetings and discussions where all these points of view have been put by extremely eminent and respected scientists.
I ask the Government to find a method whereby this could be published so that we can weigh up the facts involved. For my part, I am sure that all the farmers I know would go along with this particular point of view. If there is the slightest danger that human life can be lost through the use of any of the antibiotics mentioned in this report of Professor Swann—or not mentioned as yet and not even yet discovered—through them being used on animals, whatever the cost to the industry and no matter what problems this may pose to the agricultural industry, they would be prepared to see them not used for animal sub-therapeutic uses. They would be prepared to accept this.
But they would want evidence that this was so, and they would want to be shown that it was definitely so and that there was no doubt—or the minimum doubt—in the minds of those experts and scientists putting this theory forward. If this was so I know no one—and certainly not myself—who would be against regulations being brought in to stop the use of antibiotics on sub-therapeutic levels in animal feeds and so on.
But until this is done and until it is proven, there are great difficulties in proceeding along this particular line. The opposition and the difficulties within the industry would be considerable. I do not know for example whether the veterinary service and the veterinarians in this country are sufficient in number to be able to cope with the increased demand that would come upon them with the increase of disease which undoubtedly would take place if the small doses used at the moment were not applied. I do not know whether they

could cope. How could the Minister deal with the fact that large farmers employing their own vets might be able to get around these provisions?

Sir Douglas Glover: I am listening to the debate with fascination. I do not know whether this applies to animals in the same way as it applies to human beings, but surely if one gives animals small doses regularly one is probably breeding a resistance, so that if one gives them these drugs when they have a disease they have become resistant to them. Surely the drugs would be more likely to cure disease if the animals were not already taking them regularly. That applies to human beings.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The point is that, by these minimal doses, disease is kept at bay, and in any case an animal's life cycle is relatively small. Animals are slaughtered before disease actually comes in.
The new Clause is designed to find out the Government's intention. I ask the Government to probe the evidence before going into this new field. If there is sufficiently conclusive evidence that any particular penicillin or whatever it may be—such as chloramphenicol, as I believe it is—is harmful, then it should be banned, as it is at the moment, at sub-therapeutic level. This is essential. Until that is done, I ask the Government to be careful in how they proceed. There are all sorts of snags and pitfalls into which one can fall and do irreparable harm, not only to the agricultural industry but also to the veterinary service and the drug industry. I ask the Government to be careful. There is a great deal of worry in all sections of the community—farmers, scientists and others. We must proceed with caution and not leap in too quickly on insufficient evidence.

Mr. David Crouch: I must first declare an interest in as much as I am connected with the pharmaceutical industry. But I am not making any plea, as the House will understand, for any freedom for the industry in this subject. What we are debating is the series of recommendations of the Swann Committee. The point I wish to raise concerns the recommendation for the banning of antibiotics, particularly oxytetracycline, penicillin and chlortetracycline,


being used in feed additives for pigs, for example.
The basis for that recommendation is that the continued free use of antibiotics as a feedstuff would constitute a public health hazard. I am entirely of the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that if there is any possibility that a public health hazard may exist, with danger to life of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Kitson), who said that there was a possibility that the death of 15 children on Tees-side might have resulted from the use of antibiotic feedingstuff, the use of these substances should be banned.

Mr. Kitson: I did not say that. I said that the children died because of drug resistance. We never saw the report. All we know is that the hospital used eight antibiotics before it found one that worked. It was because of this condition in the children that they died. But we never saw the report on the reason for their death.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is right to take me up on the point. That is the situation. They died because of a resistance to antibiotics in medical treatment. I am sure the whole House agrees that if there is any suggestion that such a resistance has occurred in people, even if only one person, it must pause before considering allowing the use of these antibiotics in this way.
The House is a very serious place on occasions. It is very serious when it considers an argument such as this. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West has pointed to the other side of the argument. I wish to do so. I, like my hon. Friend, do not feel, having read the Swann Report many times, that a public health hazard has been proven. It is suggested: I am very concerned it might exist, but I do not think it has been proven. I know, too, of scientific opinion in this country and in other countries that agrees with the view that it has not been proven.
9.45 p.m.
The free sale of these antibiotics for feedingstuffs has been admitted in the Swann Committee's Report. We should

remember what it said in paragraph 2.39, page 14:
What may be said is that economic benefit results from this practice, which may be very important to the individual farmer and could possibly mean a difference between profit and loss.
That is one side of the argument that has to be taken into account, but it is not the main point. I agree we are not talking about profit and loss compared to the danger to life. We shall have to accept the loss of profit as the cost of meeting any possible hazard.
The Swann Committee also recognises the contribution which these antibiotic foodstuffs are making in the economics of intensive animal production. Paragraph 9.4, page 41, says:
The animals achieve marketable weight sooner and in some cases they eat less food in reaching this weight than they otherwise would.
There is clear acceptance by Swann that the antibiotic foodstuffs do perform a valuable function in this modern type of farming which we have to live with.
As I said, there is a wide body of scientific opinion which disagrees with Swann. As far as the United States is concerned, the Federal Drug Administration is not proposing to take any action until it finds the case proven. I have recently discussed this question, since the publication of the Swann Report, with a certain Professor Huber, visiting this country to study the Swann Report and to study scientific opinion on this matter. That is what I have heard from him.
Neither the World Health Organisation nor the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has decided that it is necessary to take such action as Swann has recommended. They have studied the same subject but have not come to the same conclusion.
One of the critical questions—perhaps the most critical question in this matter—is whether the organism that produces disease or death is obtained from animal or from human. This is the nub of the question; this is what I must ask the Minister to consider with his scientific advisers: whether that point has been established to his satisfaction. I hope he will tell us something about that tonight.
The likelihood of the organism that might have caused death or disease being


successful and, as is said, "colonising" is said by many scientists to be greater if the organism is derived from man rather than from animals. That again comes from Smith of the Animal Health Trust in a publication in the Lancet of last year.
Infections caused by resistant bacteria are not necessarily the result of transfer of these organisms from animals; they are just as likely to come from the human pool of resistant organisms. The problem is not only one of resistance coming from antibiotic treatment of animals, but also of antibiotic treatment of humans. Humans are also treated with large amounts of antibiotics, often over long periods, and particularly in the case of older people. Man is continually, as the scientists would say, selecting out his own resistant strains of bacteria, without any animal connections at all.
To sum up, there is no convincing evidence anywhere, not in the Tees-side or the Manchester epidemics, that the multiple product resistance was derived directly or indirectly from animals. As Swann said in paragraph 4.4:
most salmonella infections in man in England and Wales are cases of 'food poisoning' contracted by eating infected food.
Perhaps it would be more correct scientifically to have said not "infected" food but "contaminated" food, which might have been contaminated in handling.
I suggest that the case is not yet scientifically proven. We are afraid of what we think is happening or of what might be hapenning scientifically, so we are going to act with caution. I am not against that. We are going to stop the use of this growth promotant in intensive farming, with all the advantages but with the possible dangers. We must learn to live scientifically in a modern world.
I ask the Minister only three questions. First, what will he do about getting the scientific evidence to support his decision, which will ultimately slow up food production in some measure? Second, how does he intend to prevent the use of the banned antibiotics being given widespread application on prescription as a prophylactic for disease in poultry or pigs? Third, what safeguards will apply to prevent the import of any food, poultry or pig meat which might have been pro-

duced on a feed containing the banned antibotics?
I do not say that we should do nothing and set up another committee. What I am saying is that we should pause and prove the case. Let the Minister set up a study group for this purpose. Swann in itself is an incomplete story. For one thing, no bibliography is attached to it. We do not know the full data on which Swann reached its conclusions and made its recommendations. If we are to live in a scientific world and make a decision, let us make it knowing that we are absolutely right.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Clause could present real difficulties for practical farming. The problem is serious. Some dangers are emphasised more than others, but there are enough danger signals to make the problem serious. Modern agriculture needs to produce food intensively. With the danger signals on the one hand and the need for intensive farming on the other someone will have to pay the cost of withdrawing these antibiotic substances. The public cannot have it both ways. If they want these substances withdrawn they will limit the intensive production of meat and eggs and so on. If they are prepared to pay the cost, that is fair enough, but if not, the present position must continue. It is no good blinking this fact. It has been estimated, I believe by the Ministry, that the withdrawal of these substances would cost the industry £2 million to £3 million. Others have said that it would cost £30 million. Whatever the cost, the burden on agriculture would be considerable.
At this stage, I am neither for nor against the new Clause. There are real problems ahead, particularly if we abandon the use of antibiotics. However, if the public accept the situation and are prepared to pay, then perhaps this step should be taken. We may have to accept this course as research develops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) pointed out, there is the problem of imports from countries where antibiotics are used. This may place British agriculture at a serious disadvantage.
I hope that the Minister will deal with these matters because we cannot have it both ways. If the public are prepared


to pay, then we can do away for antibiotics for this purpose. But can that be done at present? There are danger signals and it is obvious that the Government must make up their mind on this issue.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the long night ahead of us, I shall be brief and concentrate on the new Clause.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider presenting the two major opposing views on the Swarm Report, not least Professor Chain's view, so that we may judge this matter in a fully informed way.
That should be done in the way the Government, for the first time in Parliamentary history, enabled us to judge the important issue of the 300 GeV accelerator for C.E.R.N. It was the first time that all relevant scientific information was contained in one document.
I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson), bearing in mind what happened in his constituency. He would not have been doing his duty to his constituents had he not expressed grave concern over what happened to those unfortunate children. However, I ask him to consider withdrawing the new Clause, since I understand that the Government are about to lay regulations dealing with certain of these substances. That will give us a wider opportunity than we can have tonight to discuss the whole matter.
If the Government have already made up their mind that it is necessary to take action in this calendar year, then dealing with the issue on this basis—passing this Measure now and having to take further action in, say, six months' time—will result in unnecessary delay. If the case can be proven for taking action, the sooner it is taken the better. I would not like to rely on the passing of this Measure for some steps to be taken along these lines, with perhaps six months elapsing before the Government publish their list.
I hope that there will be the closest possible consultation with those most qualified to give evidence and that we will have a real opportunity to debate the

Swann Report and the opposing opinions in a fully informed way, which we cannot do at present.

Mr. Stodart: We are obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) for raising this subject in the form of the new Clause. He has a reputation for persistent questioning and inquiry into what is an immensely serious matter, and this has been reflected in the discussion.
Some of my hon. Friends have studied this subject closely since Professor Swann reported. It is an extremely technical subject, probably more technical than the laws of compensation, with which we have been dealing. It is difficult for a layman to know who is right, be it Professor Swann or Professor Chain.
I was interested when the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) suggested that powers may already exist. No doubt the Minister will tell us about that when he replies. I speak as one who has been farming for a long time——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Agriculture Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Stodart: For nearly 20 years now antibiotics have been used with apparent success in animal feedingstuffs. I use the word "apparent" because of the misgivings expressed by the Netherthorpe Committee in 1966. It said that there were grounds for concern but that there was no evidence. Hence there arose the Swann Committee. I suppose that, naturally, I lean slightly towards Professor Swann's findings as he is one of my distinguished constituents. If I knew that he was one of my distinguished supporters, I might lean more heavily on them but of that I have no inkling.
The Swann Committee has reached conclusions and says that harm has been done to human life. It also says, on page 40 of the report, that
the evidence available is not yet sufficient to allow a precise quantitative assessment of all the different aspects of the argument.


So—and this is inevitably reasonable—it says that certain precautionary steps had better be taken.
The controversy that has been aroused by the report has been fairly brisk. It is on two points. The first is the cost. I see from the Scottish Farmer of last Saturday that a speech was made by Mr. Keith Grainger in which he said that the implementation of the recommendation
had been estimated to cost British farmers over £30 million at the time when they were very hard pressed for cash.
I set that against the figure which Professor Swann quoted to me of £3 million. Strangely enough, there is the same range of difference proportionately between the figures quoted in the Government's White Paper about the cost of going into Europe. Perhaps the Government may be able to tell us tonight what their precise estimate is.
The second point in the controversy is that scientists are by no means unanimous. I wonder whether we shall ever reach a situation in which scientists are all agreed. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the anxiety we must feel when children are dying. There must be anxiety and a searching after the cause. Should we therefore take the responsibility of waiting until that day, when the Netherthorpe Committee admitted that there were grounds for concern four years ago and the committee set up to investigate those grounds has declared that there is harm to human health?
This is a responsibility, and it is no light responsibility, for the Government. I am well aware that the Minister realises this. I still hold the view which I expressed when the right hon. Gentleman made his original announcement after Questions in the House. This sentiment has been re-echoed by many of my hon. Friends tonight. It is that human health overrides absolutely and utterly any economic advantage no matter how great that economic advantage may be.
Imports of this kind would seem to be uncontrollable except by international agreement. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us something about this. What are the Government doing as a result of the Swann Report? It was

to find out this that we were prompted to put down the new Clause, and short though the debate has been, it has been very useful.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) for putting down the new Clause. I cannot accept it, but at least it gives me an opportunity to explain what powers we have and what action we propose to take, which is very useful.
One thing that has stood out is the difference of scientific opinion. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that if we are to wait until all scientists are unanimous it will perhaps be too late and there will be nothing to cure. We must remember that we are discussing not profits or losses but what might well prove to be a matter of life or death.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said that the Americans have come to the conclusion that they will do nothing until they can get positive proof. It is not so long ago that I was badgered in the House for not taking certain steps because American scientists had decided otherwise. We must follow our own best judgment and that of our advisers. The Swann Committee had all the evidence, and there is hardly an hon. Member in the House—there may be one or two—who is technically competent to make judgments of this kind. In the main we must rely on the people who are regarded as expert in the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that no Government, no matter what their political colour, can do other than accept the opinions of those who advise Departments.
The Swann Committee was appointed to consider all the evidence, and the Government have in general acceptqd its advice. We hope to put some of its recommendations into effect. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) gave the date of implementation as 1st July. There is no secret that the Health Ministers have that date in mind. It is a preliminary date, and discussions are proceeding about its feasibility.
I should now like to go on to what I consider to be the main reason for the


debate and let the House know where we stand on the matter. The debate is welcome not only because it gives me the opportunity to make information available but also because we can make it clear that we have specific necessary powers already available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said, they are included in the Medicines Act, 1968, under which substances may be incorporated in feedingstuffs only if they are covered by a product licence and are incorporated in the manner in which the licence permits. The products licensing system under the Medicines Act 1968 is not yet in operation, but the health Ministers will bring in these regulations by order as soon as possible. The substances concerned are those which are incorporated for a medicinal purpose.
It may be felt that this unduly limits the effect of the provision to which I have just referred. However, this is not the case since the breadth of "medicinal purpose" is such that it covers chemical additives used at sub-therapeutic levels, including antibiotics and other prophylactics used for disease prevention, and chemicals such as mineral additives used for growth promotion.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks said that we should implement the Swann Report as soon as possible. We are always being pressed to do things more speedily. It is a change of opinion from the view expressed opposite that we should not move too hastily. We have already made clear our wish that the Swann Report should be dealt with as quickly as practicable. But before we take steps to carry out the Swann recommendation that penicillin and the tetracyclines should be withdrawn from use as feed antibiotics, it was necessary to ensure that the agriculture industry had at least one feed antibiotic which it could use in their place.
My colleagues the Health Ministers have now made regulations, the Therapeutic Substances (Supply of Zinc Bacitracin for Agricultural Purposes) Regulations, 1970, Statutory Instrument No. 475 under the Therapeutic Substances Act—this all sounds very technical, and I give the House the assurance that I will not seek to compete with the hon. Gentleman in moving the new Clause and his pronouncements on at least nine substances, but this is an important matter for the industry—which permit the use of zinc bacitracin as a feed antibiotic with effect from 26th March. The way is now clear to restrict the use of penicillin and the tetracyclines.
We are consulting the organisations concerned to decide the date by which the substances should be made available only on prescription. I agree that the date is important in this respect, and this is why we are consulting all the interests concerned so that we may get the greatest amount of agreement. We shall certainly not get 100 per cent. agreement; that would be asking too much, but we shall make every effort.
In the light of these remarks, I hope that the House will appreciate that there are already powers available to limit the use of chemicals in animal feedingstuffs, and we are taking action following the report to meet the needs of most people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now feel that he can withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. Kitson: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for its content. I am delighted with what he had to say, and I only hope that the new Clause has played some part in getting the regulations brought forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'for human consumption'.
Hon. Members opposite, in particular the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), will recall that they tabled an Amendment in exactly these terms in Committee. We said that we had no desire to restrict unduly the Authority's powers in relation to egg products. Because of the limited market for egg products for industrial purposes, however, we had not at that stage thought it appropriate to complicate the Authority's task by extending its rôle in relation to egg products into the industrial sphere from the outset. We undertook, in Committee, to consider the point and, on reflection, we agree that it would be useful and prudent to adopt the wider definition proposed in Committee, and I am sure hon. Members opposite will welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Mills: We welcome the Amendment and are pleased that the Government have listened to our arguments in Committee. The Amendment means that the authority will have freedom and will not be restricted by the words "for human consumption".
The stability of the egg industry is dependent on its ability to sell its products to the best advantage, particularly as the Government are not giving aid in support buying. We therefore want the industry to be able to deal with the widest range of products. New uses for egg products are continually being developed and I hope that the authority will play a leading part in these developments, particularly in times of glut. This will give the authority every encouragement to find other outlets.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF EGGS AUTHORITY

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg

to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'twelve' and insert:
'not less than twelve and not more than fourteen'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment it would be convenient to take also Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Stodart: Would it not be more suitable to take Amendments 2 and 3 together and 4 separately, as it seems to be on a separate point?

Mr. Hughes: I felt that it was appropriate to take Amendments 2, 3 and 4 together, as you suggested Mr. Speaker. The Amendments are related, and I would prefer to speak to them together.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to press his objection?

Mr. Stodart: No, I do not want to waste time.

Mr. Hughes: These Amendments follow from an undertaking which I gave in Committee to give further consideration to the proposals in Clause 2(2)(a) dealing with the appointment of the independent members of the Authority in the light of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides. The proposal in the Bill was that there should be 12 members of the Authority, three of whom would be independent members. The effect of Amendments 2 and 3 would be to make these minimum requirements, and to provide for a maximum of 14 and 5 members respectively. This follows the precedent of the Home Grown Cereals authority, and is designed to give Ministers a greater degree of flexibility in the appointment of the independent members.
The authority will be concerned with all aspects of the marketing of home produced eggs in the United Kingdom and, bearing in mind the nature and extent of these responsibilities, our aim must be to secure the widest possible range of relevant knowledge and experience in the membership, from within the industry and outside it. We are providing in the Clause for the appointment of nine members, after consultation with the producer and trade interests, and it seems to us that this is a reasonable provision for the industry's contribution to the membership.
The independent members will also have an essential part to play in the authority's work and we have reached the


conclusion, after reconsideration and after taking careful account of what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen said in Committee, that we could not be sure of achieving the right balance if the number of independent members were to be limited at all times to a maximum of three. On the other hand, although there is nothing sacrosanct about a particular figure, it was the general view of the Committee that a total membership of 12 was just about right, and we would be reluctant on general grounds to go above this figure.
I can give the House an assurance that we shall not appoint more than the minimum of three independent members for which provision is made under this Amendment unless we cannot otherwise secure the properly balanced membership which we consider to be essential.
To come to the third Amendment, this will have the effect of ensuring that the independent member appointed to the authority as being specially conversant with the consumer interests will not become the chairman or deputy chairman.
An Amendment designed to achieve this result was moved in Committee by hon. Members opposite. Although we were unable to accept it at the time, I promised to look at it again as part of our overall consideration of the proposals in Clause 2(2)(a), I am glad to say that with the greater flexibility in the appointment of individual members which we shall be securing through the previous Amendment we will be able, by means of this Amendment, fully to meet the point of view pressed upon us by hon. Members opposite. I hope that on reflection they will see their way clear to supporting these Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I understand from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that while we are taking these three Amendments separate he wants to divide on one. Which one?

Mr. Stodart: Possibly on No. 2. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession that he has given to us. He has met our point in Amendment No. 4, but the reason why I rose earlier to ask about the grouping of these Amendments is that although they deal with the board numbers of the composition of the authority, the effect of

Amendments 2 and 3 disturbs us slightly. We want to explore this. I am not entirely certain at this stage what will come out, but the Minister said that the number of independent members would not be exceeded except in special circumstances, or something like that.
Amendment No. 2 takes us back to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) in Committee. As the authority is constituted in the Bill, there are two independent members, namely the chairman and vice-chairman, one consumer representative, five producer representatives and four representatives of ancillaries. The hon. Member proposed an authority of 12 with two independents, still the chairman and vice-chairman, four producer representatives instead of five, three ancillary representatives instead of four, and three consumer representatives instead of one.
The Government are now suggesting an authority of between 12 and 14 with from two to four independents, five producer representatives, four representatives of ancillaries and one representative of the consumer. The only difference is in the loading of independents. It is possible that the extra couple of independents could be consumer minded.
I do not think that either the Government's Amendment or that tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is as good as the original. However, I almost prefer the one moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe to the Government's compromise. That may be because I am a little biased, since the hon. Gentleman was so forthright in his criticism of the Labour Party's agricultural policies. He spoke of the bitter opposition of the Co-operative Movement, which he described as being the only effective spokesman for the consumer at the time, to the original Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). That is not before us.

Mr. Stodart: I was just coming to the end of my reference to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. This was an entirely Labour Government inspired act, and we were grateful for the hon. Gentleman's praise for our efforts to amend it.
There are strong reasons for the Government standing firm on their original proposals. The first reason is that, without having very strong views on it, they prefer 12 to 14. The Reorganisation Committee suggested an authority of 6 or 7 independent people. That may not be of much help to my argument, but 6 or 7 is nearer to 12 than to 14.
The second reason why the Government should stand firm is the existence of two other authority-type bodies which have been set up in recent years—the Home-grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission. The latter body relies on specialist committees, and the balance of its composition is not of much help to us. That is probably the pattern which the Reorganisation Committee had in mind, but clearly the Government do not agree. The Home-grown Cereals Authority has a membership of 21 to 23, of which independents number 3 to 5, producers 9, and ancillary representatives 9. The producer representation is almost identical with that proposed in the Clause at present. The producer representation is 10 per cent. higher than the Government would have it if they appoint a 14 member authority.
The balance of the authority is quite important. The objectives of the authority are primarily, though not entirely, of significance to producers, and it is the producers who will have to pay a fair whack of the expenses. The composition of an authority to a great extent should reflect the financing of the authority. I believe that if producers are to pay the bulk of the costs they are entitled to the representation that is in the Bill now.
10.30 p.m.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can ignore the misgivings of producers, which he must know about, at the removal of the Producer Marketing Board. Those misgivings are very strong, and I believe that they will increase to a pitch where the authority might be rejected altogether if the producer influence on it is reduced too much. If the remark that the right hon. Gentleman interpolated into his speech—I dare say that it was slow of me not to catch on to it—has the effect of keeping the

balance as I believe it should be kept, we would be happy. But we are not happy with the Amendment as drafted, because we believe that it will take away the influence and the voice of producers from the board to an extent which it ought not to do.

Mr. Tony Gardner: It would be churlish of me not to thank my right hon. Friend for attempting to meet, at least in part, the proposals which I made in Committee. I apologise for not being here when he began his speech in moving the Amendment.
I was slightly disappointed to hear him assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that he would only use the two extra members if he felt that there was an improper balance on the new authority. I am not sure what that meant. My view is that the balance was to some extent out of skew because the consumer was under represented and the producers shared with the wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers a heavy preponderance on the authority. It seemed to me and to other people concerned that the consumer needed a greater voice.
When I saw the Amendment I was gratified. I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers whether he will make use of these two extra appointments, he will look at the balance on the authority not merely from the point of view of producers against distributors, but also from that of the consumer. I should have been happier if my right hon. Friend had specifically stated in the Amendment that two extra consumer representatives would be appointed.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) quoting my words in Committee as a condemnation of the Government's agricultural policy. I did congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the wording that they put into two Agricultural Marketing Acts. I repeat, they were good Acts and the representation given to the consumer was an improvement on what we had done. We all like progress, and we live and learn. I said that the consumer had always opposed the Agricultural Marketing Acts. I maintain that this was a fair statement.
The producer boards were primarily set up to organise the industry in the in-interests of the producers. They were not set up as a result of pressure from the consumer or anybody else, but because the producers wanted a stable market for their products. This is reasonable. I also want stable markets for products. But, given that we want stable markets for products and given that the marketing of products has to be organised, in some cases in the form of a State appointed monopoly, I believe that the consumer ought to be fairly represented on these bodies. It is still my view that the consumer was not, and is not even now, represented on this Egg Marketing Authority. If we are talking about the Government's agricultural policy in general—and I shall stray from the rules of order for only a moment—I must say that I much prefer my right hon. Friend's policy to that advocated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I still doubt whether we have this right.
I was disturbed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the fears of the industry. I have read the note which the N.F.U. sent to us all. I was a little worried about the remark that this could be the last straw for the producers, and that it could lead to a massive rejection of the authority. There was a lot of talk in the House last night about people outside the House influencing the Government. This sort of threat, if threat it is, is equally dangerous to legislation and to the activities of Her Majesty's Ministers.
If the House in its wisdom decides that the authority shall be of a certain composition, that it will replace something of which the producers have made use, and that it is necessary in the interests of producers to have this authority, it ill-behoves people to suggest that it will not be supported. There is no difference between the view expressed about this authority and what we were told was the view of people outside about another Bill which is going through the House.

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten one thing. The primary duty of the authority is the marketing of eggs, and it is the producers who pay the bulk of the costs.

Mr. Gardner: The producers pay for it, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have tabled a number of Amendments to suggest that the Government should pay substantially more towards the costs of this authority. It may be that the House will accept those Amendments. If that were to happen it would strengthen the argument that if we are to have this kind of authority the taxpayer and the consumer should be represented on it.

Mr. Michael Jopling: To which Amendments is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Gardner: I was referring to support buying, but I shall be out of order if I deal with that now.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gardner: There are Amendments dealing with that matter.

Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)?

Mr. Gardner: Later we shall discuss—and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will want to participate in the discussion—whether the Government are making a big enough contribution towards the work of this authority.
May we come back to the main point? I still maintain that members——

Mr. Jopling: rose——

Mr. Gardner: I think that we must——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The Chair is having some difficulty in deciding whether the hon. Member's remarks are in order. Perhaps he will help me.

Mr. Gardner: May we get back to the main point? This authority is concerned with the marketing of eggs. It is in the interests of the consumer that there should be a stable market, and that eggs should be marketed efficiently and at the cheapest possible price. It is also in the interests of the producer that there should be a stable market. If we are to set up bodies of this kind, the consumer, who, after all——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The three Amendments which the House is discussing are concerned with the constitution of the board. I am finding it difficult to see how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to that proposition.

Mr. Gardner: I defer to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Amendment which enables the Minister to appoint two more independent members, and I am saying that there might not be a proper balance on the board. It seems to me that part of the business of being in balance is the question whether the people most concerned with eggs in the last resort—the consumers—are fairly represented. When my right hon. Friend considers the question of balance, I hope that he will bear that fact in mind and will not listen to the pleas of those who want this Authority to be completely dominated by producers.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am opposed to the Amendment. In Committee on 20th November, 1969, I said that I was opposed to it, and I still am. The Bill seems to be right in respect of numbers. A maximum of 12 seems to be the basis for an effective body. In Committee, on 20th November last also, the Minister said:
we are naturally anxious to keep the total size of the Authority within manageable limits".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th November, 1969; c. 63.]
I believe that he was right, and I do not understand why he has changed his mind. He has not put forward a satisfactory case for this increase in the number of members. The Reorganisation Commission said that it was right to have a small committee, and I agree.
The National Farmers' Union, which will play a big part in the future of the authority, is firmly opposed to any increase. In a letter that I have received from it, it says:
There have already been strong criticisms from producers that the Government is moving from a Board dominated by producers to an Authority where producers have a less than 50 per cent. share of the members. If the Government does not drop this Amendment, we envisage widespread opposition by producers to the Authority as a whole. It could be the last straw as far as producers are concerned, and could lead to a massive rejection of the Authority.

I believe that that is true. We have only to remember what happened to the Agricultural Training Board to realise the strength of the objections. Any authority has to have the confidence of the members concerned—the producers—or it will fail. There are serious words, and I ask the Minister to pay heed to them. Without co-operation the authority is bound to fail. Egg producers who have been in touch with me feel strongly about this matter.
If the Government insist on the Amendment the producers must have more representation. If the independents are increased from 3 to 5 the producers must be increased by 3 and the trade by 2. But that is a second-best idea; the smaller number is surely best, as the Minister agreed in Committee. If the Government say that they may do this for the consumer they should also say that they may do it for the producer. As it stands the Amendment will weaken the producers' representation.
I suggest that the Minister leaves the situation as it is and asks leave to withdraw the Amendment. If, after the authority has been set up and is working, he finds that it needs an increase in membership, the question can be dealt with at another time. There will be another Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill at some time. At least he will then have a valid reason for increasing the number of representatives on the authority. At present, I do not think that he has a valid reason. I ask him to think seriously about this matter. The producers believe that this could be the last straw. They are very unhappy. I am not allowed to go into all the other things the Government have failed to do about this authority, but the producers feel that this matter is so serious that it might upset the whole working of the Authority.
I welcome Amendment No. 4. The Government are wise to bring it forward. It clarifies the intention that the consumer representative should neither be chairman nor deputy chairman. Success or failure depends, again, on the type of man chosen as chairman. There must be confidence in him. He must be impartial and truly independent. This has been so with other authorities. We want it to be so with this one. Amendment No. 4


makes the situation clear but I am bitterly opposed to the other two Amendments.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I support my hon. Friends. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about Amendment No. 2 but was confused at the end. I think he was trying to be helpful to the House, but I was not clear about what he was saying about the Amendment. He appeared to be saying, "Give me the Amendment. I shall not use the powers under it unless certain specific things happen". That is not good advice to give to the House of Commons. Once an Amendment like this is passed, the powers are there and, although the right hon. Gentleman may be well intentioned, we do not know what will happen.
It is clear that there is genuine concern among producers about the composition of the authority. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) referred to producers' attitudes. In fairness, he will accept that producers have had to give up a producers' marketing board for this commodity and also the benefits of the guarantees which existed, on the withdrawal of which they received no warning. They are entitled to consider what is being put in place of that system.
The type of authority originally proposed, if one is to have a change of this nature, was fair in the representation it would have given to the producers. But if one is to change it in this way, or make provision to enable the right hon. Gentleman to change it—and he says that he does not want to change the balance but wants the power if he is forced to do so—one is bound to be weakening the position of the producers in relation to the authority.
We should consider the position of the egg producers. It has been eroded substantially. They have lost the benefit of the guarantees and have no undertaking from the Government that they will provide funds for help with support buying, for example, about which we feel strongly. Now the authority itself is to be overloaded, so the producers feel—I do not want to overstress this—with people who will not necessarily understand their point of view. We want a strong authority but we believe that the balance proposed originally by the right

hon. Gentleman was fairer. He has not made out a case tonight for making the change he now proposes. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming with the House when he replies to the debate, or will be willing to return to his original position about the composition of the authority. We shall otherwise feel so deeply unhappy about this matter that we shall have to record our view.
I join the welcome given by my hon. Friends to what the Minister has done in Amendment No. 4. We are grateful to him for acknowledging the need for a change of this kind. However, it is a pity that in making this helpful move forward he has taken a retrograde step, and I hope that he will be able to reassure us.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I feel that these Amendments represent a genuine attempt by the Government to meet the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides in Committee. I am therefore somewhat discouraged to find that they have not had a better reception from some hon. Members. This demonstrates the impossibility of pleasing everybody—a fact which comes home to politicians, especially Ministers, fairly frequently.
The question which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and other hon. Members put to me was in what circumstances Ministers would exercise the power to appoint additional independent members of the authority. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said that an increase from 12 to 14 members would make the authority unmanageable. I am sure that that would not be so. We want the authority to be manageable; but in addition we want it to represent both producer interests on the one hand, because it must have the confidence of the industry, and on the other hand consumer interests. We are seeking the right balance.
I repeat that we shall not appoint more than the minimum of three independent members unless we cannot otherwise secure a properly balanced membership. The hon. Member for Torrington said that we should leave it as it was and return to the House with further legislation if that proves necessary. I should have thought that there was every argument for having flexibility to enable the


present Minister of Agriculture or a future Minister of Agriculture to make this small change in the membership of the authority. That is surely not unreasonable. It has been done time and again in previous legislation and it is not sensible to make a big song and dance about it.
The circumstances in which a Minister might wish to appoint one or two additional members could arise, for example, as a result of territorial considerations. The authority will be the authority for the whole of the United Kingdom and while there cannot be any question of regional representation as such, regional balance within the authority would clearly be important. I have always attached great importance to regional representation in so far as it is possible. I have taken the view throughout the period that I have been in the House that a board, or authority, or committee, was totally inadequate unless it contained at least one Welshman. No doubt the right hon. Member for Grantham would feel the same about Lincolnshire and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about Scotland and the hon. Member for Torrington about the South-West. I would not disagree with them. Although it cannot be a primary consideration, the question of territorial com-

position is of some importance in these islands. This is one of the factors which might point to an increase in the number of independent members. Flexibility is important, and we are not seeking a too considerable degree of it.

Then there is the question of the balance. We recognise that if more than three independent members were appointed, this might appear to dilute the influence on the authority of the five members to be appointed after consultation with the producer interests concerned. I have already assured the House that we should not exceed the limit of three independent members unless there were very good reasons. If the issue arose, we should certainly wish to satisfy ourselves, by consultation with the Chairman, that this would not impair the harmonious working of the authority.

It is, after all, of paramount importance that the authority should have the confidence of the industry, that it should work well—it will have a complicated task and that the producer interests should be well represented. With these explanations, I hope that the House will agree to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 117.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[10.58 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dickens, James
Horner, John


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Ray
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Huckfield, Leslie


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hynd, John


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bence, Cyril
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Kelley, Richard


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Lawson, George


Boston, Terence
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brooks, Edwin
Ford, Ben
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'hurn)
Garrett, W. E.
McCann, John


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
MacDermot, Niall


Coleman, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McElhone, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael


Conlon, Bernard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hooley, Frank





Millan, Bruce
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Molloy, William
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Newens, Stan
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David (Consett)


Norwood, Christopher
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, Tudor (Bercon &amp; Radnor)


Oakes, Gordon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Orme, Stanley
Rowlands, E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Oswald, Thomas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, J.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Park, Trevor
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Walter Harrison




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hilt, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Silvester, Frederick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Speed, Keith


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Temple, John M.


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Waddington, David


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walters, Dennis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wiggin, Jerry


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt, Mark


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, R t. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nott, John
Mr. Anthony Grant.


Goodhart, Philip

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'three' and insert:
not less than three and not more than five'.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

No. 4, in line 8, leave out from beginning to 'of' in line 9 and insert:
(ii) two (neither being the member appointed pursuant to sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph) shall also be appointed by the Ministers to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in line 17, leave out from 'engaged' to end of line 21 and insert:
'in activities comprised in the marketing, distribution or sale by retail of eggs, in activities ancillary to the production of eggs, being

activities comprised in the hatching or rearing of domestic fowls, or in activities comprised in the production, marketing or distribution of egg products, or the use of egg products as materials for the purposes of manufacturing businesses carried on by the persons in question'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7 in line 21, at end insert 'for egg production'.

Mr. Buchan: This subsection attracted a certain amount of attention in Committee, not because of any disagreement in principle but largely because hon. Members found the wording somewhat


obscure. In particular, hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned to ensure that only organisations representing persons engaged in the hatching and rearing of domestic fowls for egg production, as opposed to broiler production, should be consulted by the Minister under the provision.
In Committee we suggested that the wording met the point, but we promised to examine the matter. Having done so, we have redrafted the provision. There is little change in substance, save that we have brought organisations representing the users of egg products within the scope of the consultation procedure. This will meet the anxieties expressed in Committee, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that Amendment No. 7 is not necessary.

Mr. Peter Mills: We welcome Amendment No. 6 because it clarifies the wording of the Clause and meets the point we made in Committee. We tabled Amendment No. 7 to exclude those concerned with broiler production from the authority. After all, there could have been a powerful lobby to obtain this representation. We did not want the Minister to be hoodwinked over this, remembering that those who rear fowls or chickens for broiler production will not pay the levy. Representation on the authority should, therefore, be restricted to those who rear fowls for egg production. Those who produce eggs will pay the levy and support the authority. Those who are in broiler production will not be levied and, therefore, should not be represented on the authority.
I hope that the Government appreciate the danger here; that many producers are, as it were, entwined with feed suppliers and other big producers of table poultry. I trust that the Minister understands our fears, and I assure him that his Amendment is very welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY AS TO MARKET SUPPORT

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'for any purpose'.
The provision "for any purpose" is too wide-ranging and we are not happy

about it. It is conceivable that eggs might find their way back to the retail market and be sold for any other purpose. There could be a panic to get rid of surplus eggs and they might be sold to dishonest traders or manufacturers. The National Association of Multiple Grocers has been in touch with me on this problem. The association says:
Whilst the Authority may need such power to produce eggs and take them off the market, we cannot agree that the Authority should have completely unrestricted powers as proposed in the Clause of disposing of eggs which it may buy.
We strongly recommend that the Clause should be amended so as to prohibit the Authority from returning those shell eggs for retail sale on the shell egg market in the United Kingdom. Such prohibition would restrict the Authority in one way only in the matter of disposal; it would leave the Authority free to dispose of the eggs in any other way, e.g. by exporting them for sale on shell-egg markets abroad or by breaking them out for processing.
It would be no support to the market to take the eggs off the market at one end and put them back on the market at the other end, as the Clause would permit; it would have quite the contrary effect to that which the Clause seeks.
These views are held by many grocers, who certainly realise the dangers of this provision. The Minister should consider what they say. This is a simple Amendment which would not be difficult for the Government to accept.

Mr. Hoy: We had discussions on this point earlier.
I am advised that it is doubtful whether the omission of the words "for any purpose" which the present Amendment proposes to take out would make much difference in practice to the extent of the authority's powers. But I certainly would not accept that the words are superfluous. They have been deliberately inserted in the Bill in order to make it clear beyond any possible doubt that the authority will have a free hand to sell as they think fit any eggs purchased under market support operations. This provision would cover in particular not only the sale of eggs to processors for breaking out but also their disposal on the shell egg market.
When we were discussing this matter in Committee some hon. Members opposite expressed the fear that if the authority were free to sell the eggs on the shell egg market they might be very stale when they reached the consumer.


But we are setting up this authority for the express purpose of improving the marketing of home-produced eggs and clearly the very last thing they will want to do is to contribute in any way to the sale of stale eggs to the consumer. In the ordinary way no doubt the authority will exercise its powers under this provision by selling the eggs for breaking out but there may be special situations in which sale on the shell egg market would be a reasonable and sensible method of disposal. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that we can rely on the good sense and judgment of the authority in this matter. This is the job it has set out to do to encourage a good British product. Anything done to the detriment of that would be to the detriment of the industry. I am certain that if the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) thinks it over he will agree that if they were to do anything other than that they would not be doing their job, nor helping the industry.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I understand what the Minister is getting at, but I would have thought he would have considered the danger here and perhaps the authority will read what has been said and the fears expressed, so that when the time comes, this will not take place.
There is a terrible temptation for the authority to put these eggs on the market, particularly as the Government are not going to assist with support buying. I cannot see that there will be any breaking out of these surplus eggs unless there are sufficient funds by levy to pay for the cost. There is this temptation because obviously they will get a better price for shell eggs than for breaking them out for manufacture. There is a terrible—or a serious—temptation here. I hope that, although we shall not press this Amendment, the authority will at least be aware of the fears of the trade and of some of us here.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY AS TO MARKET INTELLIGENCE

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert:

(ii) activities ancillary to the production of eggs, being activities comprised in the hatching or rearing of domestic fowls or the disposal of domestic fowls at end of lay; and

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.

Mr. Hoy: I think it would be agreeable to both sides if we took all these together.
As hon. Members opposite will recall, we had some discussion in Committee on the authority's powers in relation to the voluntary supply of information on chick placings and the culling of birds from the laying flock. There was agreement between us that it would be desirable for the authority to have this information. The only question was whether the point was covered by the existing wording of the Bill. Our advice was that the wording was adequate for this purpose. Hon. Members opposite felt differently, however, and successfully pressed their point in a Division.
We agree that in this very important sphere of the authority's activities it is important that there should be no element of doubt. On reflection, therefore, we are prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment carried in Committee. Amendment No. 11 is a purely technical amendment designed to bring the wording more closely into line with that adopted elsewhere in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept it on this basis.
Hon. Members opposite will recall that they also tabled amendments to Clause 4(2) at the Committee stage in terms similar to those we are now proposing in Amendments Nos. 12 and 14. We said then that we agreed with the Reorganisation Commission that powers for the compulsory collection of information were justified in relation to wholesale prices and the related aspect of quantities since these would clearly be key factors in the market situation.
We also said that we had not hitherto felt justified in going further than this, but that in the light of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, we would be prepared to have another look at their point before the Report stage.
It remains our hope that the authority will be able to obtain all the information they need for their market intelligence


functions on a voluntary basis. I am sure that the industry as a whole will recognise the advantage in the common interest of co-operating fully with the Authority.
What we are dealing with here therefore is essentially a reserve power, but on consideration we accept that it would be prudent to extend the authority's compulsory powers in the manner suggested by hon. Members opposite in Committee. I am sure therefore that hon. Members opposite will welcome the Amendments.
I should mention the slight differences in the terms of the Amendments compared with those tabled in Committee. They are the result of bringing the wording more closely into line with that adopted elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 13 repeats an Amendment tabled by hon. Members opposite in Committee. We then said that we were prepared to consider extending the Authority's powers in relation to the compulsory supply of information on the lines proposed by hon. Members opposite. Our own Amendments to subsection (2) reflect the results of this consideration and cover the substance of the points raised in Committee, the difference being the technical one of the wording, which we have brought into line with that used elsewhere in the Bill.
I therefore hope that the House will agree to the Government's Amendments and that hon. Members opposite will feel that we have done sufficient to cover their point and will not press their Amendment.

Mr. Peter Mills: Government Amendment No. 11 is acceptable to the Opposition. We welcome what the Government have done. The collection of the fullest information is vital for the authority, if it is to work properly. Information, if collected properly, will enable the authority to plan ahead and anticipate trends in the changing needs of the consumer. Amendment No. 12 is acceptable, as it provides for the registration of persons engaged
in the hatching or rearing of domestic fowls".
It is right for the Authority to have this power.
Our Amendment No. 13 is similar to the Government's Amendment, except that we are also concerned about the disposal of domestic fowls at the end of

laying. A considerable number of fowls are sold by producers through other than the recognised poultry packing stations, which obviously would have to be registered. Such other outlets would be from the farm gate, on van rounds, or directly to hotels. It would be difficult to get the people concerned to register. This type of outlet might grow over the farm gate, on van rounds, and so on. The authority might not have all the necessary information to ensure that it knows how many fowls and chickens are being disposed of. We thought it worth tabling our Amendment to re-emphasise this point. We shall not press our Amendment, but we hope that the Authority will consider what we have said. If the trade grows and grows, it may be necessary for some of these people to register.
Government Amendment No. 14 is also acceptable, as it broadens the scope of the information which the Authority may obtain.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
',or in activities ancillary to the production of eggs and comprised in the hatching or rearing of domestic fowls,'.

No. 14, in line 43, after 'retail', insert:
',as to the numbers of domestic fowls hatched, reared or disposed of at end of lay by those persons in the course of activities ancillary to the production of eggs, and as to the prices at which any such fowls have been sold by those persons'.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 5

FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY AS TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Goner: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 35, leave out:
including imported eggs and imported egg products".
In Committee we did not seek to move Amendments to this Clause dealing with research and development. We were pondering the significance of the Clause and we probed the Government on one or two aspects in the main debate on the Clause. The most significant information we obtained from the Government was that they were firmly committed to paying some part of the cost of research and development. Now we seek to probe a


little further on paragraph (b), dealing with
research into the demand for eggs or egg products and into matters connected therewith, including the collection and analysis of information as to that demand and as to the prices paid for eggs or egg products,…".
The next words are the ones we seek to exclude:
including imported eggs and imported egg products,….
What have the Government in mind? We had understood that it was their objective, as it is ours, that this country should be self-sufficient in eggs. The provision of a minimum import price which they are establishing should help in that regard. Therefore, we wonder why there is any need to have research or development in any matter relating to imported eggs.
There could possibly be a case in regard to imported egg products, because they have been substantial, though I see no reason why we should not substitute home-produced egg products for a large proportion. But I find it very difficult to understand why there is any need to make provision for research into the demand for imported eggs. It seems to run counter to the Government's announced proposals on eggs. It certainly runs counter to our own thinking about our self-sufficiency in eggs.
It could lead to misunderstanding, in that it could give the impression that the Government were thinking of a continuing need for a substantial importation of eggs. I hope and believe that that is not their feeling, but the retention of these words gives a definite feeling that there might be provision for this. The words seem wholly superfluous to us. There should be no reason for keeping them. I do not rest my argument on the mere point of drafting, but if the words were deleted I doubt very much whether the authority would be prohibited from carrying out any research into imported eggs and their sale.
I rest my case on the actual need. It is inappropriate to include in such a Bill reference to imported eggs when it is clear to all concerned with the matter that British egg producers are highly efficient and produce all the eggs we need. There is no need to encourage egg imports, and therefore there is no need to encourage research into their

sale or disposal. The words are unnecessary and jar against the principle that we hope the Government accept, as we certainly have, that we should be concentrating on home-produced eggs, particularly shell eggs, rather than relying on imported eggs. We believe that we can do so, and therefore the words should be deleted, unless the Government can show clear reason why they wish to keep them in.

Mr. Hawkins: I feel even more strongly about the matter than does my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I have always felt that we in this country could be fully self-sufficient in eggs and egg products. I am convinced that our egg industry, which is very powerful and very modern, could well fill any gap. Now is the time to say that we shall have no more imported eggs and egg products from anywhere, because occasionally the very small amount of eggs that has been coming in has been a cause of considerable damage to our home egg market. Therefore, I press with all the strength at my command that the words be left out.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and am unhappy that there should be included in the Bill the words
research into the demand for…imported eggs and egg products.
It seems ridiculous that a British Egg Authority—and some of us tried to include the word "British" in Committee—should be at all interested in the demand for imported eggs. This is the wrong way to go about this. Even though the amount of imported eggs is small, possibly about 2 per cent., it is easy for it to upset the balance of the industry, and cause great damage. It is ridiculous that we should import eggs when we have an abundant supply of our own. The danger does not come so much from the shell egg but from the importation of egg products.
I hope that the Minister realises the dangers ahead. Through the Government's failure to assist in support buying, the bakers and those in the cake industry are extremely concerned that they will not be able to continue to buy British


egg products, but will have to rely on imported products. The Farmer and Stockbreeder said recently that:
The market for egg products, which offers the one hope for the home industry in times of temporary over-supply, is in danger of being filled by imported products as the present egg marketing structure is dismantled.
That will be the position in future, unless something is done.
Some 25,000 tons of egg products go into the baking trade annually and this will increase. Those of us who have made some researches know that this is a growing trade. It is a convenience food and more egg products will be required. The authority ought to be far more concerned about home produced egg products rather than with the demand for imported egg products. I ask the Minister to look seriously at our Amendment because behind it looms the problem of imported eggs and egg products. I hope that he can show us that it is not the intention of the authority to be concerned with the demand for imported eggs or egg products.

Mr. Peyton: I join with my hon. Friends who have so far spoken in wishing to stem the tide of foreign eggs entering our country, but the question I would ask is: why on earth have these words been put into the Bill? The Clause as worded gives the authority power to collate or prepare information or estimates with respect to prices, supply, demand and other market conditions, whether actual or prospective, relating to eggs or egg products. There are no words to exclude imported eggs or imported egg products, and one wonders why the words are put in, unless it is wished to give my hon. Friends the chance of a little debating practice. The words are superfluous. I hope the Ministers will say that they have made a mistake, and that they realise the words are totally unnecessary.

Sir J. Foster: Will the Minister tell us whether the words:
including imported eggs and imported egg products
qualify the words "eggs or egg products" the first time they are mentioned? If that is so, it may be that part of the Amendment is unnecessary. It is straining language to make the qualification

refer back to the first use of the words "eggs or egg products". It is true that Casement was executed on a similar construction of the Treason Act, 1351, where the words "in the Kingdom or elsewhere" were held to refer back to the first time the expression "eggs or egg products" was mentioned.

Mr. John M. Temple: Did my lion. Friend see the interesting letter in The Times yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in which he suggested that parliamentary draftsmen should spend a sabbatical year in a solicitor's office, after which they would be able to draft more clearly? Does he agree with that?

Sir J. Foster: No, I have great respect for the parliamentary draftsmen. I do not know if I have made my point clear. The expression "eggs or egg products" is mentioned twice. On the second occasion the words:
including imported eggs and imported egg products
are added. In ordinary language that qualification would apply only to the last occasion on which those words are mentioned, and it is straining language to make them refer back.
The words are not necessary, I have shown that the construction is ambiguous and I hope that the Government will agree to exclude the words. If my construction is right, it is even more ridiculous that the authority may engage in research into prices paid for imported eggs but not into the demand.

Mr. Buchan: I was a little surprised to see the Amendment and I wondered what would be made of it. It has served to raise the question and has enabled hon. Members to express their genuine fears about importation. The drafting point was that the words were unnecessary, and it was asked whether this had anything to do with the yoke of foreign eggs by which we are dominated.
On the drafting point, it has been said that if we had wanted to deal with imported eggs and imported egg products we could have done so anyway since the Clause refers only to eggs. I refer hon. Members to page 2, where "eggs" and "egg products" are defined:
'eggs' means eggs in shell laid by domestic fowls, being, except when qualified by the word


'imported', eggs so laid in the United Kingdom;
So that one falls.
It is quite irrelevant whether there will be more importation or less importation. If there is to be more importation, it will be done regardless of subsection (5)(b). If there is to be less importation, it will be done regardless of subsection (5)(b). The subsection is concerned only with research, and the Amendment will prevent necessary research being carried out to assist the authority.
We believe that the authority should be assisted. We believe that one of the factors which would assist the authority should appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is the effect on the prices paid for eggs and egg products, whether referring to the first or second reference to egg products, because, whatever the grammatical context, the value of either or both would be useful to the authority in determining these matters.
That is all that it does. The information on prices which the authority will need to collect and analyse in this context will be primarily information relating to home-produced eggs and egg products. But there is sometimes an interrelationship between prices of home-produced products and imported supplies.

Mr. Peyton: I confess that I had not noticed this arrogantly insular definition of "eggs and egg products", and I cannot help feeling that the confusion calls for the presence of one of those fabulous creatures, a Scottish Law Officer, to explain it.

Mr. Buchan: I do not think that anyone doubted that the hon. Gentleman had not read the definition, but I am glad to have his assurance.

Sir J. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: Not about Roger Casement, I hope.

Sir J. Foster: No. May I ask him which construction he adopts? In the definition Clause, it says "qualified". Does he say that the last expression qualifies the first?

Mr. Buchan: It qualifies both. My point was that it was, in this sense, irrelevant and, whether it qualified the first or both, it was of assistance to the authority. However, I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman the point that it qualifies both.
This has been a useful, if slightly humorous, debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will now withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I must disappoint the Minister, because I could not possibly agree to withdraw the Amendment after such an unsatisfactory reply. He has not faced up to my main point, which was that, if it is the intention of this Government, as it will be the intention of the next one, to see that imports are minimal or non-existent, what is the need for research into imported eggs or egg products?
In reply, the Minister said that, if we were to take this way, it would prevent necessary research. I challenge him to justify the word "necessary". There can be no necessary research on imported eggs. The necessity is to see that the home producer is provided for in such a way that he can produce all that we need. Research on imported eggs is wholly unnecessary and unjustified. The Minister's reply has been wholly unsatisfactory. I invite my hon. Friends to show their disapproval in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 136.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Dean, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Doughty, Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Drayson, G. B.


Biffen, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Eden, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, Henry
Emery, Peter


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Errington, Sir Eric


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fortescue, Tim


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crowder, F. P.
Foster, Sir John




Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Tom
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Silvester, Frederick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stodart, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Walters, Dennis


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hill, J. E. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Holland, Philip
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wright, Esmond


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis
Wylie, N. R.


Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hn. George


Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Jasper More and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hector Monro.


Kitson, Timothy






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Park, Trevor


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richard, Ivor


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Rowlands, E.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, J.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Tinn, james


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wallace, George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Willis, Rt. Hn. Georg


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Winstanley, Dr.M. P.


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller., Dr. M. S.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Gardner, Tony

Mr. James Hamilton.

Clause 13

PROVISION FOR LEVY

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 12, line 9, leave out subsection (6).
This again is an Amendment with which we were concerned in Committee. We

feel that the authority should not be burdened with the additional job or expense of determining which officers are employed under which category for levy purposes. The Government wish to split these costs, and we do not think that this is fair. We believe that it is a burden, and that staff and overheads


should be treated as general expenses for overheads. We find it difficult to understand why the Government cannot see this and appreciate the difficulties which the authority will experience if it has to split the staff up to determine into which category they come for levy purposes.
This subsection should be deleted. It is impossible for the authority to allocate employees' time and overhead costs either to advertising or to support buying, as suggested in the Clause. If employees are involved in support buying, or in advertising, that should be considered as part of the overall staffing costs of the authority, and therefore part of the administrative expenses.
We should like to hear from the Minister whether this is an unusual policy for this authority. What we are advocating is accepted for other authorities. We shall be interested to hear why the Minister cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hoy: The purpose of the provision that the hon. Members are seeking to delete is to lay down precisely how the authority is to apportion its administrative costs for the purposes of the levy estimates that they will be required to submit under this Clause. These estimates will need to distinguish between the amounts required for market support, for advertising and for the authority's other non-trading functions respectively. Some method of apportionment of salaries and overhead expenses is therefore necessary.
I can assure hon. Members opposite that the problem of dividing up the time of staff employed on a number of different activities has not, so far as I am aware, presented any special difficulties for other bodies with which my Department is concerned. The method of apportionment for the Eggs Authority laid down in subsection (6) is reasonable and practicable, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mills: I am not entirely satisfied with that reply. The Minister gave a very hurried explanation. We feel that this is an important point. The Minister did not answer my question whether other authorities have to bear this burden of apportionment. I do not want to press the Amendment, but I would have hoped

that the Minister would take this matter more seriously.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member evidently did not understand what I said. I said that the question "has not so far as I am aware presented any special difficulties for other bodies with which my Department is concerned".

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24

REVOCATION OF SCHEME ESTABLISHING BRITISH EGG MARKETING BOARD

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 19, line 36, at end add:
(2) After the passing of this Act, nothing in the said scheme shall have effect so as to require the election of new members to the said Board; and the said Board may, by a resolution passed at any time before 31st March 1971, extend until the making of an order for the winding-up of the Board the term of office of any elected or co-opted member whose term would otherwise expire at the end of that day.
(3) The Board aforesaid may at any time before a petition for the winding-up of the Board is presented pass a resolution providing for the disposal on the winding-up of the Board of any assets of the Board remaining after the discharge of the debts and liabilities of the Board and the payment of the costs, charges and expenses incurred in the winding-up, being provision either—

(a) for the transferring of those assets to a person or persons specified in the resolution for use by those persons for purposes so specified, being purposes which appear to the Board to be for the general benefit of persons engaged by way of business in the production of eggs; or
(b) for the distribution of those assets among such of the persons registered as producers under the scheme aforesaid as may be specified in the resolution in such proportions as may be so specified,

and any such resolution may make different provision according to the amount of those assets to be disposed of; and where such resolution has been passed as aforesaid by the Board, then, notwithstanding anything in the Companies Act 1948, the assets remaining as aforesaid shall be disposed of in accordance with the resolution.
The Amendment deals with the problem arising from the fact that three of the 17 elected members of the Board are due to retire on 31st March, 1971. Under the scheme as it stands the Board would be required some months before 31st March, to make provision for election of members to replace those due to retire on that date. Deferment of the date would not necessarily make this


requirement without effect. It is clearly undesirable that the board should be under any obligation in relation to election of members for a term starting after the scheme has been revoked, and the board has asked to be relieved of it.
The Amendment is intended to do this. At the same time it would empower the board to pass a resolution extending the terms of office of the three elected members who would otherwise retire on 31st March, 1971. This would make it possible for them to retain their membership until the winding-up order is made by the court. Ministers' members of the board are also due to retire on 31st March, 1971, but there is no need to provide in the Bill for extension of their terms of office; this can be done—if the members agree—by Ministers under their existing powers.
The Bill as it stands would leave unchanged the provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958 and the scheme for the winding-up of the board, which would therefore proceed in accordance with Part IX of the Companies Act, 1948 which, in its application to the board, is modified by paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir T. Foster) finds this amusing. I have always looked on him as a good lawyer, and I thought that I was doing well.
Under these provisions the court would decide the disposal of any surplus remaining after the debts and liabilities of the board, and the costs and expenses of winding it up, had been met.
The board has represented to us that it is only reasonable that it should have a say in the disposal of the surplus. We agree with this, and the position would be met by the Amendment. It would empower the board, subject to certain conditions, to pass a resolution before its winding up petition was presented, determining the disposal of the surplus, whether by distribution among producers or by transfer to some person or organisation to be used for the general benefit of the egg production industry.
The resolution could provide for alternative methods of disposal, depending upon the amount of the final surplus as determined when the winding-up was

complete. All these provisions are necessary as a consequence of the revocation of the scheme and would be welcomed by the board.

12 midnight.

Mr. Peter Mills: We welcome this Amendment. It is a wise move that no new members of the board should be appointed and that the term of office of the present members should be extended until it is finally wound-up.
The distribution of the assets when the board is finally wound up must be carefully handled and must be seen to be carefully handled. This is a producers' organisation. They have paid into it, as it were, and in a sense its assets are theirs and should therefore be distributed amongst them. I am not too happy about the phrase in the Amendment,
ߪto a person or persons…
I would rather have these assets distributed to registered producers, which would seem a better way to do it. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully how this is to be done. It must be clear that the assets are being distributed fairly, and to distribute them to registered producers would be the best way. Apart from that, we welcome the Amendment, which is a wise move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 22, line 31, leave out 'and 31' and insert:
',31 and (Amendments as to grants in connection with alterations of farm structure)'.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 32

TERMINATION OF GRANTS UNDER HILL FARMING ACT 1946 S. 1

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 26, line 34, leave out '1973' and insert '1976'.
The Act referred to in Clause 32 is the Hill Farming Act, 1946, which ended in 1963. When an Amendment was moved in Committee to extend the termination date for claims under the 1946 Act from 1973 to 1978, in order to allow schemes in the pipe line to complete their journey through it, hon. Members were interested and, indeed, astonished to learn that the average time taken for


a scheme from the first application to final completion was about 13 years in Scotland and about 11 years in England and Wales.
On that basis, only schemes which were initiated in the early 1960s would have much chance of being completed by 1973. But, of course, it is only right to emphasise two points in this connection. First, average figures can be misleading and in this case the spread of cases is very wide. Secondly, the Hill Farming Act was extremely comprehensive and the majority of projects grant-aided under it will be eligible under other legislation which is not subject to termination in 1973. The sufferers, so far as grant is concerned, will be the houses on hill farms, because houses—shepherds' houses amongst others—are excluded from grant altogether under legislation other than the Hill Farming Act.
In many other projects, such as the improvement of buildings, or the installation of electricity, or the making of roads and bridges, the rate of grant under other legislation which may adopt schemes which are unfinished by 1973 is lower, even at 35 per cent., and that is allowing for the 10 per cent. increase from 25 to 35 per cent. One must remember that the higher rates of grant which were announced three weeks ago will not apply after 1973 anyway, as they are to last for only two years. Anything that is unfinished in 1973 will therefore be back to the 25 per cent. grant instead of the 50 per cent. which it gets under the Hill Farming Act.
In Committee, both sides were entirely agreed, as we so often are on hill farming matters, that no action should be taken which would make things in any way more difficult for a section of the industry which at the moment does not have to look for its problems, and our anxieties centred around the projects which would not be finished by 1973. The Under-Secretary was kind enough to say that he would see what information he could give us before Report, and he followed that assurance with a letter which he sent to me.
I hope that he will not think that I am extremely ungracious when I say that it is because of what he said in his letter, together with further information which I have received from another source, that we nave reintroduced this subject tonight

with a plea for a compromise date, a compromise between 1973 and the date of 1978 which was suggested in Committee. We have now suggested 1976.
The hon. Gentleman has told me that the value of outstanding work is now about £10 million of which £4½ million is in respect of work which other schemes do not cover. He said, too, that these figures might be on the high side, because several schemes tended to fall by the wayside for one reason or another. I am not very encouraged by his reaction to what we debated in Committee, for £4½ million is a great deal of money for the hill areas and the work involved badly needs to be done.
I have received figures from a single estate which will interest hon. Members. There are 27 unfinished schemes on this estate dating from 1951 to 1967. In value terms, the work still to be done is £138,000 of which £73,000 will be coverable by other schemes. That leaves work that will be downgraded in grant or ineligible for grant after 1973 of £66,000. The values I have quoted were the figures when the applications were put in, several of them many years ago. Of these 27 schemes, nine were approved by the Department as recently as 1963–67. Remembering this average figure of 18 years, schemes which were only approved as recently as 1966 or 1967 have very little chance of getting through by 1973, which is within only six or seven years. Costs are rising fast, and, since the schemes were estimated, prices have totally changed. So the total outlay of £139,000 could be £200,000 at present prices, and the £73,000-worth of downgraded or ineligible work could stand at £100,000.
The Minister might say—this was my first thought—that people should, at all costs, get on with work which will fall out of grant by 1973. But it is probably impossible to concentrate exclusively on those operations. The picture is of an estate and its tenants trying to achieve by 1973 an expenditure of £100,000—these are the priority schemes—or, more reasonably, nearer £150,000 altogether. That is a very tall order, in the present financial situation of hill farming. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Chancellor—I suspect that it is he who is pressing for the termination of these


payments by 1973—that this is a serious matter and that there will be an extension of three years to get this important work done.

Mr. George Brown: The argument of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has some merit——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to speak? If he is I must propose the Question, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Brown: I will make a speech, but I did not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) had sat down.
The hon. Gentleman was making an interesting and, up to a point, convincing argument that certain hill farmers should not be precluded from getting grants because of an action and because of time. This would mean the expenditure of more public money. What puzzles me is that last night his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), the shadow Minister of Housing, told people on television that the Conservatives would spend less public money than the Labour Government. How can one do that one night and come in the next night, after midnight, when one expects that no one is really listening, and beg for more money? This is one of the most ridiculous things by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not so much ridiculous as cheating.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The Government are.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Brown: This is double-talk. I repeat, I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He did not make a bad point, but hon. Members opposite cannot do that tonight, after midnight, and go on television and appeal for votes by saying, "We will spend less". I ask the Conservatives to make up their minds. Do they want to spend more? Do they want to spend less? If they are going to spend more on hill farmers in Scotland, from whom are they going to take away? They cannot at one and the same time spend more and and spend less. They cannot spend more unless they take away from somebody else. There is an awful lot of double talk going in this House,

and it ought to be shown to be such, even at 12.15 in the morning.

Mr. Michael Noble: I am not certain that I can altogether answer the right hon. Gentleman's point. He has, I know, taken a considerable interest in these sorts of problems in the past. As I understand the position, the money for these hill-farming schemes has already been allocated; so it is not a question of spending more but a question of the time in which the money is to be spent.
I should like to speak for a few moments on this problem. As the House knows, I am very much interested in it, and have, over the years, made a great deal of use of these hill-farming schemes. As I see it, over the last number of years the hill-farming schemes have been of enormous benefit to a very wide range of people in the areas which I represent and which many hon. Members know about. The problem has continually been raised in this House and in every area where hill farming exists—the problem how to find the extra money over and above what the Government have, quite generously, given in grants for extra production. There has consistently been a number of farmers who have said, "We would like to take advantage of a scheme to increase our productivity but we simply cannot find the money."
This has been one thing which has delayed, perhaps, the full use of the scheme as Parliament in its wisdom suggested it, and I think this is one of the reasons why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, these schemes have taken a fairly long time to complete. The money was just not there. In the time-scale, perhaps the farmer hoped it would be when he was drawing up a scheme. Also, again as my hon. Friend said, Parliament in its wisdom decided to use this type of scheme as against specific grants, because Parliament wanted a complete overhaul of the farms concerned so that they would become viable not just for a year or two but, hopefully, for a number of years.
I have had a good deal of experience of this, discussing ideas and schemes with the Department's officials, who came and asked me what my plans were for five or ten years and how I saw the whole picture developing. In this matter, as in


many other industrial matters—and they are not totally dissimilar—it is extremely difficult to forecast over 10 or 12 years exactly how one thinks one's production will go. If one is lucky one gets it right for the first three or four years, but then, beyond that, all sorts of things change—prices change, markets change, methods change, scientists bring in new ideas, and one wants to change one's ideas with them, if one is to treat one's scheme seriously.
In the time I have dealt with these schemes, both on my own account, and with many of my constituents, the Department, broadly, has been extremely co-operative and sensible in allowing people to change schemes as conditions have changed, to make alterations not only in the whole scale of a scheme but in the details of it. This has been a continually changing pattern and I think it has been of benefit to the farmers and, probably, to the country as well. These schemes have, as a result, lasted for a considerable time, and that, broadly speaking, has been of benefit to the nation.
I hope that the Government will look favourably on the Amendment because at this time, perhaps more than any other—I am thinking particularly of sheep, but the same applies to hill cattle—a great many new ideas are being developed and the results of the small and large-scale experiments which are being carried out will have a profound effect on the whole industry in the next 10 to 15 years.
The information which we now have is at an early stage and needs to be developed. A number of friends of mine have schemes which could probably be used to take advantage of some of these new ideas. However—in saying this I am not making a political point; the Government accept this as much as I do—at present there is an acute shortage of cash in the whole hill farming community. We need not argue whether this is due to Government action or the weather. Judging from the weather over Easter—I spent most of the Recess on my farm—and the results of the February Price Review, which may or may not bring a little cash into hill farming areas, there will undoubtedly be a slowing down of the already slow

pattern of development of schemes in this industry.
It is not possible to get money from the banks or easily possible to borrow from other sources. The farmer must. therefore, generate it on his farm, and this presents him with a big problem. Even at this comparatively late hour, I urge the House to accept that a real problem faces those who are trying to improve their farms.
I agree that 1976 is six years ahead. but the cash must be generated before schemes can be carried out. In the areas about which I am speaking it is not always easy to get contractors to carry out schemes, even when they are agreed. Delays of six or nine months can occur. There are, therefore, genuine reasons why the Government should accept the Amendment, and I cannot think of a reason for rejecting it.
I accept the point of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) that we do not want to saddle the country with enormous extra expenditure But previous Governments have wisely committed this money and it would be regrettable if the hill farming community were deprived of part of it or forced to alter schemes, not because such alterations made sense but because, by bringing plans forward, they would gain an extra 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. This is a wise Amendment and the Government will not regret accepting it.

Mr. Hector Monro: My hon. and right hon. Friends put the case so well that I am sure the Minister will accept this very fair Amendment.
From reading the speeches he made in Committee, I think he did not bring out the reason why he wants the date 1973 to be put in. He spoke about applications outstanding, but he did not make a case for this specific date for the completion of the Hill Farming Act. He was not sympathetic to our case, although he was prepared to extend the Act it that was found necessary. It would seem much more simple to accept the Amendment and make the date 1976, which should cover most eventualities and allow completion of the Act without too much alteration of carefully scheduled programmes by hill farmers and estate owners who may have a number of hill farms leased to tenants.
The Minister said in Committee that there were still of the order of 1,400 schemes to complete. It has been highlighted tonight that shortage of cash in the hill-farming industry will make it extraordinarily difficult for those farmers to alter their plans so that they can complete them by 1973. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has emphasised the very serious situation in relation to cash for improvement schemes at the moment. [Interruption.] I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the committee meeting going on at the end of the Chamber can be stopped.
No section of farming today is more short of cash than hill farming. I do not think the increase of 3d. a lb. on lamb will make a dramatic impact. It will certainly not mean the injection of cash which hill farmers need at the moment. In my constituency some of the finest hill farms are being taken over by the Forestry Commission or private forestry groups because hill farming is no longer profitable. The Minister ought to move as far as he can to help hill farmers by giving them an extension of the Act so that they can bring forward their schemes and, with luck, make their holdings more profitable.
The difficulty which my hon. Friends face tonight is that the Government are so stubborn. We all agree that the Act has been of tremendous value. It has provided new buildings, new roads, drains, fences and so on. Some of these items, of course, will be covered by grants under other schemes, but the whole essence of the Act was the gradual programming of the improvement schemes under carefully laid down schedules. It seems a great pity that for a matter of two or three years the Act might end on a disappointing note for hill farmers whereas, if we allowed it to play out time, it would not cost the Government more money but hill farmers would have the opportunity of obtaining the full benefit from a valuable Act. For this reason, I hope that the Minister will accept our Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I support what my hon. Friends have said on this Amendment. The points which they have made are very convincing.
I must comment on the interjection we had from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). It is very nice to have him back in our agricultural debates. This recalls memories of old and happy days. We hope that he will spend many more hours with us. I suspect that he was on a false point tonight. This was money already committed, some by the Conservative Government and some by the present Government. I am sure that he would not wish any Government to dishonour any pledges they had given. On his wider comment, I would say that he was unwise to introduce that point in relation to agriculture where we have definite plans for containing public expenditure and we are entitled to take credit for those plans.
12.30 a.m.
Coming to the main issues raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to reinforce the points strongly. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) were compelling. He reminded us that £10 million was outstanding, of which £4,500,000 was not covered by other schemes and will therefore be lost if proposals are not completed by the date the Order is introduced. I acknowledge that in Clause 32 the wording is such that it gives the Government flexibility and enables them to have a later date, but it is bad legislation to make a provision which they are clearly not going to use.
If the arguments are as compelling as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, one should have a later date as the earliest terminal date, and if the Government say to us that they would not think of using 5th November, 1973, because of the reasons put with such force from this side, then they should write them into the Bill. We have put forward two dates—1978 and now 1976, and we think that 1976 is the earliest possible date against the history and the background of the time taken by any of these schemes.
The Minister did not want to hit the hill farmer who was struggling under difficulties and if this is so, he should accept our modest and fully justified Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: We have had an interesting debate and by no means the least


interesting point was that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Be1per (Mr. George Brown). I was interested in the argument he advanced.
The Amendment is proposed so that hill farmers may get more money from the Government. That is the point. To a large extent, the arguments have come from the information I gave to the hon. Gentlemen so that we could have a proper look at the Amendment in assessing the position. It was only in the last sentence before I spoke that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) picked up the point that the date is flexible:
…not being earlier than 5th November 1973".
The point did not come up earlier. By that date, we are giving every applicant at least 10 years from the date of the submission of proposals because those had to be submitted by 1963 when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite began winding-up the scheme. By that date, every applicant will have had 10 years to come forward with proposals and finalise them.
In the majority of cases, this is 10 years after approval. The Amendment aims to extend this period by three years so that it would come 13 years after proposals, and we think this is too long. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that we should let it play out more time and that it could not cost more money. If it would be the same number of schemes coming in over an extended period, it would be merely taking more time and this would be the height of inefficiency.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Buchan: I listened with great patience, but I do not see what there is to comment upon. It is profound truth.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has not had to operate these things. A farmer may base a proposed scheme on the hope the Governments will give some element of expansion and, therefore, that if the number of cattle or sheep is increased extra cottages will be needed. If there has been a period of four or five years in which conditions—both the Government and the weather; I will not say which has been the worst

—have been greatly against hill farming, it may be that a farmer has not expanded as he had hoped and is not ready to start building his cottage. If a date not earlier than 1973 is written into the Bill, people will believe that the axe will fall on that date and may start doing things out of time in their scheme, in order not to lose the extra 15 per cent. or 20 per cent.

Mr. Buchan: I do not want to get side-tracked to too great an extent, but I must point out an important point. Another scheme exists, and incidentally for the next two years at an increased rate of grant from this Government regardless of the weather, to which farmers can transfer for many aspects. The other section is the building aspect, for which they feel they cannot transfer. From a practical point of view, with a three years run-ahead, this should not create a practical difficulty in terms of timetabling. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I do know something about hill farming, though I do not have quite so large a possession in terms of hill sheep as the right hon. Gentleman has.
After the Committee's consideration of the Clause, I sent to hon. Members some statistics of schemes and work outstanding. These showed about 3,800 uncompleted schemes in the United Kingdom. I concentrated thereafter on those who had received formal approval after 1964—in other words, those who will not have had at least 10 full years to complete their programmes by 1973. The cost of works outstanding was of the theoretical order of £2½ million.
This seems at first glance to be a high figure, but the figure likely to be taken up is certain to be considerably less than this. First, about half of the total is in respect of items that could be done under other schemes at the same rate of grant—and, indeed, for the next two years at an increased incentive in that direction. For reasons of simplicity, some applicants already choose to switch schemes in this way; and this tendency will be greatly strengthened by the increases in the rates of grant announced as part of the Price Review determinations. Now, for example, land improvement will get a higher rate under the Hill Land Improvement Scheme, so it


would be reasonable to expect many to change. We expect an accelerating number to switch in the intervening period.
The point which is more difficult to assess is how much of the remaining £l¾ million—this is taking the ten years concept, which is a reasonable period in which to carry out works, even in hill land areas—is in respect of items which farmers have now no intention of providing. We believe that this is true in very many cases—that is, very many schemes for which approval has been given are not going ahead. Circumstances change over the years and we have found that many farmers now do not want to carry out works, particularly on housing, because the labour requirement has fallen, which they thought essential 15 years ago. We cannot assess accurately—nor can anyone—how much of this dead wood there may be, but we know that there is a considerable amount of it.
Under our proposals, farmers know that they have two years of exceptionally attractive rates of grant in which to carry out works which can better be done under other schemes. They know that they have at least 3½ years from now to complete those items which cannot be so transferred. We would have thought that the chopper was coming down next Tuesday at 12 o'clock, but there are 3½ years, which should be an adequate period of notice to get the work done. But we shall be consulting the organisations concerned to see whether they can produce evidence that a longer period is necessary. If we find that it is, we shall certainly give it.
It was a Conservative Administration that applied the first closing date in 1963. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always been very keen on arguing the case for efficient administration and keeping down costs. When we are doing precisely this I would have thought that we would have their support. It would be thoroughly

bad administration to play out time, to let these schemes run on longer than absolutely necessary, tying up the efforts of staff who are badly needed for other work. We hear so often about the number of civil servants, and I have no intention of tying up staff who could be more fruitfully employed. We are not inflexible about 1973, but 1976 is much too long.

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that the Minister presented the case fairly when he said that people will have had 10 years in which to get the thing cut and dried. In other words, he said that it finished before 1963, that applications had to be in then and that by 1973 it will have had 10 years. But he and I know that some of the schemes put in in 1963 were not approved by the Department until 1967. That is the relevant date to take this from, not the date when the applications were put in. I am not saying that there are many of these cases; they are a minority. I do not know the productive capacity of the hon. Gentleman's Department, but the fact remains that the schemes cannot start until approval is given by it.
The hon. Gentleman says that the date is flexible, but it is the earliest date—1973—that people will scramble after, and there is absolutely no certainty for what he said tonight that work that is not done then will be favourably treated. There is great difficulty in getting tradesmen to do work in the remote areas. It is much more difficult than around big cities.
For these reasons, and because of the unsympathetic and wholly unreasonable reply of the hon. Gentleman, we propose to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 129.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[12.43 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Doughty, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Eden, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Elliott, R. W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, Henry
Fortescue, Tim


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Foster, Sir John


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Glover, Sir Douglas




Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Silvester, Frederick


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stodart, Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Hill, J. E. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walters, Dennis


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hunt, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wylie, N. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


King, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hector Monro and


Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
O'Halloran, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F. 
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas


Boston, Terence
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, Leslie
Park, Trevor


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Beiner)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Conlan, Bernard
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul


Crawshaw, Richard
Lee, John (Reading)
Rowlands, E.


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Loughlin, Charles
Sillars, J.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold(Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, David
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and


Gardner, Tony
Molloy, William
Mr. James Hamilton.


Garrett, W. E.

Clause 34

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, Amendment No. 22, in page 29, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It may suit the convenience

of the House to discuss also Amendments Nos. 23, 25, 26 and 27.

Mr. Mackie: These Amendments are linked together and arise from misunderstanding in Committee about the level at which Clause 36 sets the upper limit for smallholdings. Subsection (2) expressed our meaning accurately, but


the Committee had genuine difficulty with this because of the way in which our intentions were set out. We accordingly undertook to see if we could make them clearer. I hope hon. Members opposite will agree that we have done so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There seem to be too many committee meetings going on.

Mr. Mackie: Amendment No. 25 will replace the existing provisions in the Clause on the size of smallholdings. The new subsection (2) will state unequivocally that a smallholding will be within the upper limit if, in the Minister's opinion, it provides full-time employment for no more than two men. A smallholding will exceed the upper limit if it provides full-time employment for more than two men. It also makes it clear that this does not rule out some additional part-time assistance. The Clause will, therefore, provide, in a way which I hope puts the matter beyond doubt, that holdings of three-man size will be above the upper limit and can be provided only with the Minister's approval under Clause 38.
This will require a complete reorganisation of the Clauses, so we have taken the opportunity to rationalise the other references to the upper limit in this Part of the Bill. This is the purpose of the other Amendments. By bringing the Minister's powers to make regulations about the labour capacity of a holding into Clause 36, we have been able to dispense with Clause 34(2). The revised form of Clause 36 has also made unnecessary Clause 34(4). Finally, to simplify matters still further, we are doing away with the concept of a "standard" smallholding. The discussion in Committee showed that this description was not a useful one and may have added to hon. Members' confusion.
We have, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, made a big effort to meet the Committee's points on this provision. In approving the Amendments, I am sure that we shall be making a considerable improvement in the clarity of these important Clauses in Part III.

Mr. Temple: We welcome these Amendments, because there was a lengthy debate in Committee about what should be the upper limit on a standard small-

holding. However, we are being a little grandmotherly with regard to the small-holdings committees of county councils, because I think that they are in a fit and proper position to judge the upper limit themselves.
Having said that, I draw attention to the fact that the Wise Committee, which studied this matter, had three criteria in mind to determine the upper limit of a smallholding. The first was the net income. Then it discussed the possibility of acreage being a criterion. The Government decided that manpower should be the deciding factor, and certainly subsection (2) of Government Amendment 25 is much more specific than the provision which it replaces.
The County Councils Association is not clear on three points. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that this new formula will not have an effect on existing smallholdings? If an existing smallholding is above the upper limit, it is his intention that that holding should continue?
The hon. Gentleman said that, under Clause 38(4), the Minister could give approval in certain circumstances for a holding to be rather larger. This has particular reference to the amount of equipment which might exist on a holding. Can the Minister confirm that it is his intention, where the equipment on a smallholding is of large dimensions, that the Department concerned would give authority for the holding to be retained as a smallholding?
The third point refers to the regulations which the Minister proposes to make under subsection (2) of Clause 36 prescribing the manner in which full-time employment is to be estimated. I presume that it is the Minister's intention to use the Small Farm Business Management Scheme as the basis for defining full-time employment.
It would be helpful if the Minister could clear up those points.

Mr. Hawkins: In welcoming these Amendments, I remind the House that it was the Opposition who drew attention to the nonsense of the Government's original Clause. No one could understand it, and it looked as if we intended to make the top limit of smallholdings bigger than the average farm in the country. Even now, a fairly large holding has been left.
The Clauses concerned with smallholdings make the Government responsible for far too much. The smallholdings committees, on one of which I have had the honour to serve for 20 years, are expert bodies who know their districts and individual farms extremely well. Their land agents are professional men who do a first-class job. The amount of interference which will result from the operation of these Clauses is far too great, and too many powers have been retained by the Government. I am happy that at last some improvement has been made and we will understand what the upper limit for a smallholding is.
I believe that we are still possibly making this too complicated and that it would have been better left to the smallholdings committees of the counties to settle the size they think is best for their districts. Each county knows its own land best. We really cannot lay down something for the whole country applicable in each district.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I also welcome the Amendment to the smallholdings part of the Bill. As has been said, there was a lengthy discussion in Committee on the whole policy of the Government's smallholding plan. Many hon. Members on both sides felt strongly that the matter of the organisation of the smallholdings was best left to the smallholdings committees. Indeed, I stressed this point. However, my right hon. Friend has drawn a new subsection into the Bill which will help to clarify what was a confused situation. To that extent I offer congratulations to my right hon. Friend on its inclusion.

Mr. Mackie: If it helps the morale of the Opposition in any way, I am delighted to give them what credit they like to take for this Amendment.
I am glad that the point has now been clarified for my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell).
I can assure the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that it is not our intention to require authorities to reduce the size of existing holdings in any shape or form.
I should also make clear that we do not intend to impose a rigid upper limit on all smallholdings regardless of circum-

stances. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned that the smallholdings committees are capable of doing the job, but we must give some guidance in the Bill.
On the third point raised by the hon. Member for the City of Chester, I can confirm that the proposed regulations will be based on the Schedule to the Small Farm Business Management Scheme. I think that that clarifies the point about the wording which caused so much heart burning in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 23. in page 29, line 37, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Mackie.]

Mr. Temple: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 30, line 12, at end insert—
(6A) In this Part of this Act any reference to agriculture or agricultural activity shall include a reference to agricultural contracting.
This is a relatively small matter in the interpretation Clause, but it has wider significance. We must remember that we are discussing smallholdings and the definition in this part of the Bill. Therefore, the definition which I am seeking to import is relevant only to smallholdings. It is particularly relevant to Clause 36, which is the general aim, where we have the words
having regard to the general interests of agriculture
and to Clause 41, relating to lettings, where there is a reference to the prospective tenant having "agricultural experience".
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that any applicant for a smallholding who designates himself as an agricultural contractor has a rather low priority when he goes before the lettings committee. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that he will get a tenancy of a smallholding.
It will be widely known that there are a number of smallholders—and I understand that they are extremely useful—who carry out an agricultural contracting function, and today agricultural contracting is an extremely valuable ancillary activity to the farming industry. Whereas on a smallholdings estate it is usual for there to be machinery syndicates, these do not always operate all that smoothly, and I am always inclined


to think that small agricultural contractors are a better proposition than a machinery syndicate. Agricultural contracting today can be fairly specialised. One is inclined to think of it in terms of ploughing, but many other much more sophisticated jobs are done by the agricultural contractor, and to the farming community the small agricultural contractor is very useful, indeed.
An applicant for a smallholding might have a particular aptitude with regard to machinery, and, just because he has that aptitude, he might describe himself as an agricultural contractor, whereas, as he has this knowledge of agricultural machinery, he might be an extremely efficient small fanner as well.
This is a reasonable Amendment which seeks to add another terminology to the number of agricultural activities defined in the 1947 Act. Things have moved on a good deal since 1947, and, significantly, the Government are using the definitions of agriculture in the 1947 Act. It is time, especially in respect of smallholdings activities, that we regarded the term "agricultural contracting" as synonymous with an agricultural activity.
We discussed this in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman asked the Opposition whether they could come forward with an Amendment to meet the point. We have done our best, but I would not claim that the drafting is perfect. It may be that the Amendment needs to be in a slightly different format, but if the Minister accepted the spirit of the Amendment we would be satisfied. I hope that I have made myself reasonably clear. The Amendment is put forward in the general interests of smallholdings estates, as it will encourage small agricultural contractors to set up their businesses. I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to this modest Amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: I support what was said by my hon. Friend, particularly with regard to the selection of tenants. A farm worker, or the younger son of a farmer, may move from working for a farmer into the agricultural contracting business. He may have his name on the list of the smallholdings as a prospective tenant, but once he has moved into the contracting business, either as a principal or as an employee, he moves into a lower

category and has far less chance of obtaining a smallholding. I think that widening the definition will be of great benefit.
I was on a large farm on Monday, and I learned that the neighbouring farm had paid off 26 men at the weekend. This is a very serious business. Several men may have been looking for small farms, but they may well get jobs in the agricultural contracting business. More and more farmers in my part of the world are contracting out their work. Many smallholders who do not want to keep their own sugar beet or potato lifting equipment employ contractors to do the work for them.
I do not want to see a man who moves into agricultural contracting, either as an owner of machinery, or as a worker for a contractor, necessarily to be put in a lower category when it comes to the choice of a tenant for a smallholding. This has happened in the past, and I feel that in many cases it can be very unfair. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully. It does not seem to be a large point, but it can mean a lot to some man who has excellent experience of working on farms of all types, and has therefore gained a wide experience in farming which might equip him extremely well for moving into a smallholding.

Mr. Mackie: I have listened to what both hon. Members have said, but they have failed to convince me that the Amendment is relevant to this Part of the Bill. Whatever the view of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) about the appropriateness of the 1947 Act definition of agriculture generally. or as applied to other parts of the Bill, I can only explain how his Amendment would affect Part III. I can tell him straight away that it is virtually meaningless.
To begin with, the phrase "agricultural activity" does not appear at all in Part III. There is therefore no point in defining what non-existent references to it shall or shall not be taken to include. Secondly, the words "agriculture" and "agricultural" are used in this Part of the Bill only in certain limited contexts; in Clauses 36 and 37, for example, in relation to authorities' general aim in providing smallholdings and preparing their reorganisation plans, and in Clause


41, where authorities must satisfy themselves as to applicants' agricultural experience.
In none of these contexts would it be sensible to include agricultural contracting. Authorities are concerned with the letting of holdings for people to farm on their own account, and to require them in doing so to have regard to the interests of agricultural contracting or to enable an agricultural contractor with perhaps very little practical experience of general farm work to apply for a smallholding would not be at all meaningful.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has always made the point that we could leave things to committees. If a younger son or someone like that had taken up contracting to give himself a living until he had a smallholding and had gained agricultural experience, well and good. but to write it into the Clause would be completely meaningless, and I hope that the hon. Member will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but he has failed to read his own Bill. He has tried to shoot me down on a technical point, but subsection (6) refers to Section 109 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which is the definition Section, and that Section contains a definition of agriculture. Subsections (1), (3) and (5) of that Section are linked with the question of agricultural activity. That is why I sought to bring within the terminology of agricultural activity, which is specifically referred to by way of reference in this Clause, the term "agricultural contracting".
I went into this matter with the Public Bill Office and I was advised that from a technical point of view I was correct. I must disagree with the Minister that the Amendment has no relevance to this Clause.

Mr. Mackie: My advice is the opposite to that given to the hon. Member. Whatever the view about the appropriateness of the definition in the 1947 Act, it is not relevant to this Clause. To some extent I agree that agricultural contracting is an important part of agriculture, but to put it into the Bill with reference to the letting of smallholdings seems meaningless. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West was anxious that

committees should be given reasonable powers. They can do this in the letting of farms, when they can examine the qualifications of applicants. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Temple: I cannot possibly withdraw the Amendment after the hon. Gentleman's explanation. First, he tried to shoot me down on a technicality on which he was wrong. Leaving that aside, I remind the House that I mentioned earlier that the hon. Gentleman had more or less challenged us to put down an Amendment on this point. I said that I would have preferred a Government Amendment which the Parliamentary draftsman would have put into proper technical language. I therefore pass that buck right back to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the Amendment which the parliamentary He mentioned Clause 36, which I had also mentioned and which has a general aim. I said that it was relevant. It is not, however, the first time that the hon. Gentleman and I have been at cross-purposes and have misunderstood each other, apparently. But on this occasion I must admit that I think that my interpretation is better than his. I do not wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 36

GENERAL AIM OF STATUTORY SMALLHOLDINGS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 30, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 31 and insert:
'being persons who satisfy the requirements of subsection (2) and of any regulations made under subsection (6) of section 41 of this Act and holdings which, unless let in accordance with proposals approved by virtue of section 38(4) of this Act, fall within the upper limit for a smallholding.
(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection and section 38(3) and (4) of this Act, a holding shall be treated as falling within the upper limit for a smallholding if in the opinion of the Minister it is capable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for not more than two men (including the person to whom it is let) with or without additional part-time employment for another man, and in any other case shall be treated as exceeding that upper limit, the number of men for whom it is capable of providing full-time employment


being estimated in such manner as the Ministers may by regulations prescribe'.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 38

APPROVAL BY MINISTER OF PROPOSALS FOR REORGANISATION

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 32, line 21, leave out 'of a standard' and insert 'for a'.

No. 27, in line 24, leave out 'of a standard' and insert 'for a'.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 44

GENERAL POWERS OF MANAGEMENT

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 37, line 42, leave out from 'promotion' to 'and' in line 43 and insert:
'of efficiency in the conduct of smallholdings through co-operative methods, and in particular through co-operative purchase and hiring of requisites for the smallholdings or the cooperative sale, marketing or preparation for marketing of the produce of the smallholdings'.
I hope to please the Opposition on this Amendment rather more than I pleased them on Amendment No. 24.
Clause 44 gives smallholdings authorities the powers they need to manage their estates. In particular, it enables them to encourage co-operation on smallholdings estates, to provide requisites and services for tenants and to arrange for the disposal of their produce. These powers for the encouragement of co-operation—[Interruption.]—are widely drawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can have a little more silence from hon. Members.

Mr. Mackie: In Committee, hon. Members on both sides urged us to draw authorities' special attention in the Clause to the possibilities of co-operative buying and marketing.
Although for drafting reasons we were unable to accept the Amendment put forward in Committee, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that it is
smallholders and the smaller farmers who have more to gain by group activities of this sort than anyone else in the whole industry,."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 29th January, 1970; c. 570.]

The feeling of the Committee was clearly in favour of underlining the importance of this type of co-operation. The Amendment will do so and it will emphasise the Government's positive attitude to co-operation by including in the Clause references to co-operative purchase and marketing as illustrations of the kind of activity authorities may encourage and which we certainly hope that they will encourage.

Mr. Temple: This is undoubtedly an improvement. The Parliamentary Secretary sticks to the use of the word "co-operative" and nobody understands how to define it. He said that the Amendment would encourage group trading and group buying. I have mentioned syndicated buying and the forming of syndicates. The word "co-operative" is very misleading, but the Amendment is a distinct improvement and I congratulate the Government upon it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63

INTERPRETATION OF PART IV

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 52, line 7, at end add—
(5) For the purposes of this Act, the appropriation of any material by one person for use—

(a) in the performance for hire or reward of services to another person in pursuance of a contract in that behalf, or
(b) under arrangements with another person not constituting a sale of the material to that other person, being arrangements which are intended to benefit both the person appropriating the material and that other person but under which the probability or extent of any benefit to that other person may be affected by the quality of the material,

shall be treated as a sale of that material to that other person by the person so appropriating it, and references to sale or purchase and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
I continue the generous spirit which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has begun by trying to cater for a point which was brought out in Committee, namely, that it is important that Part IV should deal with fertilisers supplied in spreading contracts and feedingstuffs used in pig and poultry rearing contracts.
Dealing first with fertilisers; it was suggested that because such arrangements involve contracts for service, as opposed to contracts for sale, the transactions concerned might fall outside the scope of Part IV, thus depriving farmers of protection which they were entitled to expect. I accept that it is equally necessary for farmers to receive the statutory particulars whether they themselves purchase and spread the fertilisers or arrange with a contractor for him to supply and spread them.
On looking into this question, it was discovered that in the great majority of cases the sale of the fertiliser is the main purpose of the contract, so that the transaction falls within the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, I understand that there are instances of contracts in which the sale is not the main substance, and we wish to ensure that these, too, will be covered. Additionally, it is desirable to take this opportunity of preventing arguments from having to be settled in court as to whether individual contracts fall on one side of the line or the other.
I turn now to pig and poultry rearing contracts. The House will no doubt wish me to explain the nature of the contracts concerned in order that the objective of the Amendment may be appreciated. Their provisions, of course, vary from contract to contract, but in general terms they involve a farmer undertaking to rear livestock for a specified period. The stock and the feedingstuff are supplied by the other party to the contract. At the end of the period agreed, the stock is sold and the profit or loss allocated in accordance with the terms of the contract. In the great majority of cases the feedingstuff concerned is not sold to the farmer, who will therefore not receive the statutory particulars or the other forms of protection which Part IV provides for purchasers.
Hon. Members will nevertheless appreciate that the quality of the feedingstuff greatly influences the progress of the stock, and thus the eventual return to the farmer. Since the farmer has no choice as to which type of feedingstuff he is given, it is most desirable that he should receive the statutory protection, for example, the particulars of nutrient content and additives, and the warranty of fitness for purpose and so on.
The Amendment is in general terms in order to cover the many individual varieties of contract involved. We have also had to ensure that the scope is not too broad so unintentionally bringing in services which should not be covered. I hope that the House will agree that this is a valuable Amendment.

Mr. Jopling: I wish only to thank the Under-Secretary for the Amendment. This matter was raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and the Government told us that they would look at it again. It is only right to mention the name of one man who has been of the greatest assistance to both sides of the House and both sides of the Committee and who was particularly concerned about this matter, Mr. Charles Miller, the Chief Weights and Measures Inspector of the North Riding of Yorkshire, who originally brought this matter to the attention of both sides of the House. I hope that the Amendment will not include all sorts of things which none of us wants, I have not been able to find any of these loopholes, and I hope that the Government have ensured that it is not that wide.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 52, line 7, at end insert—
(5) Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed as applying to feeding-stuffs which are sold principally to be consumed by pet dogs, cats and birds.
This matter, too, was raised in Committee, when the Minister said that he would try to find some words to cover the point. The Clause defines feeding stuff as
…feeding stuff for such descriptions of animals as may be prescribed, being animals which, or kinds of which, are commonly kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur or for the purpose of their use in the farming of land.
That definition includes dogs, which are extensively used on hill farms for sheep herding and so on, so food for all sorts of dogs could be prescribed. The same goes for cats, which have a farming use: many farmers claim on their tax returns for their food. Birds are also included for egg production and poultry for the table, so budgerigar feeding stuffs could be prescribed—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that fervent


support: I hope that the Minister will give me equal support and will accept the Amendment.
None of us wants these feeding stuffs prescribed. I am disappointed that the Government have not brought forward an Amendment to exclude feeding stuffs for these types of pets. The Minister made it clear in Committee, in c. 168, that it is not the Government's intention to prescribe them. We welcome that, but they should be specifically excluded from the Bill, so that we are not providing broader powers than we need. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, and will stop any anomalies in future.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) might have added that since Committee stage I have written him a letter explaining why this could not be done, and, indeed, why it is unnecessary. I thought he might have quoted what I said in the letter explaining the position.
This Amendment is unnecessary. We discussed this in Committee as the hon. Member quite rightly said, and hon. Members will know that the definition in Clause 63 of "feeding stuff" is
feeding stuff for such descriptions of animals as may be prescribed, being animals which, of kinds of which, are commonly kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur or for the purpose of their use in the farming of land".
The actual types of animals will be prescribed by regulation. This is in accordance with the general practice in legislation of this sort, whereby the enabling power is provided in general terms, the details being worked out in subordinate legislation.
In the case under review it is necessary for the enabling power to be in the terms of the definition to ensure that we can cover food for all types of animals kept or used in farming. Because sheepdogs are used on farms their food could be brought in; a similar case could, perhaps, be made out for cats since they are used to keep down vermin.
This does not mean that dog and cat food would in consequence be brought within the scope of the Bill, because—and I can give an assurance on this point—there is no intention of prescribing dogs and cats in regulations. The Amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.
I might also point out that in specifically seeking to exclude food for pet dogs, cats and birds the Amendment seeks to deal with one undesirable eventuality. There may, however, be other types of pet animals which have not been thought of but which also fall within the definition. Should such cases arise the problem would be dealt with in the way I have described, that is, by excluding them from the regulations. This is the appropriate way to deal with matters of this sort, rather than by piecemeal exclusion in the Bill itself.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I understand that there is a considerable number of dog and cat foods, especially those containing meat, which are very often used for human consumption as well. Some may prolong active life; there is another, tins of which, I understand, the dog gives his owner—Kennomeat I think that is. However, one has to face the fact that quite a number of these foods, which may be of very high quality, are consumed, I regret to say, quite often through ignorance, by some of our immigrant population. I think this is a matter which requires a little further thought. I would like an assurance that the Minister has given it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I simply want to ask the Minister two short questions. Can he say why the English language must be used in this particular fashion? The Clause says
'animal' includes any bird, insect or fish".
This is quite the most extraordinary definition of the word "animal". Why should "animal" include insect, bird or fish? If insects, birds or fish are included, why cannot we say so?
The second is a practical question. It will be known to the Minister—it is certainly widely known in my constituency—that the keeping intensively of fish for the purposes of food is a growing practice. I believe it is one which will extend quite considerably in this country. Indeed, I have a very large trout hatchery not very far from where I live——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to have moved somewhat from the Amendment.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect, I am about to put my question. What I want to


know is whether the Minister, when he prescribes the order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing the order. We are discussing Amendment No. 31, which does not relate to the points which the hon. Member is now discussing.

Mr. Griffiths: Well, I am in some difficulty. The Minister has said, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Joplin), that he need not worry about this matter because he has written him a letter—which none of us has seen—and in the letter has pointed out that regulations will prescribe what feeding stuffs will fall within the Bill; the Minister will say what kinds of animals shall benefit and which shall not. My question, very simply, to him is, will trout, which are animals for the purpose of this definition, benefit from "feeding stuff"?

Mr. Hoy: I did not rest my remarks on the letter. I suggest that, as the hon. Gentleman has not taken part in the discussion, he does not know what has gone on. His hon. Friend knows what I meant when I replied on this issue, because in Committee I promised to consider the matter and give a reply. Because of that promise, and out of courtesy, I wrote the letter.
On this question of people eating other than animals in the normal use of the word "animals", I have heard the allegation before, but I have no proof of it. This proves how right I was to say in Committee that these matters should not be specified. Whenever one starts specifying things, one is virtually certain to exclude something.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 65

DUTY OF SELLER TO GIVE STATUTORY STATEMENT

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 53, line 34, leave out from 'given' to 'but' in line 35 and insert:
'not later than the time when the material is delivered to the purchaser and, if given before that time, shall be deemed to have been given at that time'.
The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent enforcement of the accuracy of

statutory statements from being frustrated in cases where the statements are given some time in advance of delivery of the material.
As hon. Members are aware, the purpose of the statements which Clause 65 requires to be given is to provide purchasers with accurate information concerning the fertiliser or feeding stuff; for example, its nutrient content. It is an offence for these particulars to be false or incomplete. Local authorities, whose duty it is to enforce the Bill, have a power under Clause 73 to take samples to test the accuracy of the particulars in the statement and may, if they think fit, prosecute the seller if the analysis reveals the particulars to be false. Such proceedings must, by virtue of the Magistrates' Courts Act, be instituted not later than six months from the date of the offence, which in this case would be the giving of the statutory statement.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is necessary to ensure that if statutory statements are given in advance of delivery, this must not be permitted to frustrate the duty of local authorities to ensure the accuracy of the particulars which the statements contain. It has, however, recently been brought to our attention that in some circumstances—particularly bulk contracts for feeding stuffs in which delivery may be spread over a lengthy period—statutory statements required under the present Measure are given some time in advance. Since, as I mentioned, the offence relates from the giving of the statement, cases could arise in which, by the time delivery had taken place and material was available for sampling, there would remain insufficient time in which to take proceedings.
The Amendment provides a very simple means of overcoming this difficulty. By providing that in cases where statutory statements are given in advance of delivery of the material, they shall be deemed to have been given at the time of delivery; the commission of an offence will occur at the time when the material was delivered, and thus available for sampling. Thus, the enforcement problem is overcome without unnecessarily restricting the flexibility of sellers' arrangements in the timing of the giving of the statements concerned.

Mr. Jopling: At first sight, the Amendment appears difficult to understand. After that explanation I am somewhat wiser, though it is a complex matter. If the Amendment will make enforcement more effective, it is to be welcomed.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The Minister pointed out that any proceedings must be brought under the Magistrates' Courts Act. That sounds fine, but I feel certain that that Act does not apply to Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman has given information relating to England and Wales, would be explain how this provision will operate in Scotland? This Amendment will make a considerable alteration to the Bill. I hope that we shall have an answer to the important point about how it affects Scotland.

Mr. Rowlands: It does apply to Scotland. The Scottish example is covered.

Mr. Baker: Am I right in understanding that the hon. Gentleman has now said that the Magistrates' Courts Act applies to Scotland?

Mr. Rowlands: The point I made was that this point is covered by Scottish legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74

DIVISION OF SAMPLES AND ANALYSIS BY AGRICULTURAL ANALYST

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 61, line 38, after 'manner', insert 'then, subject to subsection (2) of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I understand that it might suit the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments: Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40.

Mr. Rowlands: These Amendments have been put down chiefly to deal with a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), to whom I am indebted for bringing this matter to our attention.
His point was that under the provisions of Clause 78 proceedings may be taken against a person responsible for the commission of an offence, for example a manufacturer of goods sold-on by a merchant. As hon. Members are no doubt

aware, Clause 74(1) provides that when a sample has been taken one part must be given to the seller who may, for example, arrange to have it checked by his own analyst. Clause 74(2) provides that in cases where the seller is not the manufacturer the latter shall be notified that sampling has taken place, and we had thought it reasonable to assume that in the event of proceedings being taken against a manufacturer he would be able to arrange to obtain from the seller either the reference portion of the sample or the results of its analysis.
However, on further reflections and having heard the hon. Gentleman's points in Committee, we have decided that it is preferable to make specific provision to ensure that manufacturers are placed on an equal footing with merchants. In reaching this decision we have taken two particular points into account. Firstly, we recognised that circumstances could arise in which manufacturers were unable to obtain the reference portion of the sample from the seller—perhaps simply because it had been mislaid or destroyed; it would clearly be unreasonable for manufacturers to be placed at a disadvantage in this way through no fault of their own. Secondly, cases may occur where dispute arises between manufacturer and seller as to which of them was in fact responsible for the offence; in these circumstances one party might well he reluctant to make his portion of the sample available to the other.
I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the force of these considerations and welcome the new arrangement. We have also taken the opportunity to deal with another point raised in Committee when the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) pointed out that the requirement under subsection (2) to notify manufacturers, which, as I mentioned a few moments ago, will now be superseded, applied only when their name and address were known to the inspector. He suggested that it would not be unreasonable to require inspectors to endeavour to discover their identity and whereabouts. We have taken this point and have accordingly provided that the obligation to send the part of the sample to the manufacturer lapses only if his name and address cannot be discovered after making reasonable inquiries. This will, I think, not


be unduly burdensome for enforcement officers, especially as we now propose to allow 14 days in which to do this.
We have also taken the opportunity to effect two other minor changes. The first is to require that the parts with which the sample is divided must be of approximately equal size. The second is to provide power to prescribe by regulations how samples shall be marked, sealed and fastened by the inspector; this will enable appropriate methods to be laid down as under Schedule 6 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1968.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite will welcome these Amendments.

Sir J. Foster: What happens if the manufacturer's name and address is not known until after 14 days? The manufacturer may be in the same quandary about getting a sample from the seller. Is a prosecution to take place within 14 days? The provision should be for a fourth part to be set apart for the manufacturer if he wants it later to defend himself.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Stodart: I thank the Under-Secretary for his kindness. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has said is another point which perhaps needs further examination. We felt there was a flaw in the Clause originally, and that the manufacturer was entirely left out. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for going a certain length at any rate, but perhaps he would like to comment on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich has said. This is not the final stage, and if there is substance in what he says, something could be done later.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful that the Government have made these moves. I am sure in the right direction, but reading the Amendments and the Clause, one thing bothers me slightly: that subsection (2) of this Clause says:
If the person who manufactured any material of which an inspector has taken a sample in the prescribed manner.…
It may well be that there could be two manufacturers of a product. I should like the attention of the Minister because

this is a somewhat complicated point. I am not sure whether I am on firm ground, but it may be that with some feeding stuffs two manufacturers are involved. I have reason to believe that some manufacturers of feeding stuffs will buy part of the components of the feeding stuffs already manufactured. For instance, many, I can imagine, would buy from another source, already prepared, the mineral and vitamin elements of their feeding stuff.
If the inspector takes a sample under this Clause in the prescribed manner and fails to send a sample perhaps to the manufacturer who manufactures one component before final manufacture, the prosecution could well fail. I would think this is a possible loophole. Part of subsection (2) says:
If the person who manufactured any material of which an inspector has taken a sample.…
The inspector takes a sample and any material means the whole finished product, but it could mean the vitamin, mineral or antibiotic element which is part of that feeding stuff. If the Under-Secretary does not know, I would be grateful, if he thinks there is a loophole, that he should deal with it in another place.

Mr. E. Rowlands: If the reference sample is to be available in time to be of use, particularly in determining whether to invoke the Government Chemist check analysis procedure under Clause 75, can the part be held back until the identity of a defendant in a by-passing case is known? There are a number of other people who could be involved and who do no more than pass on the goods and are unlikely to be responsible for the commission of offences. On the whole those at risk will be the final manufacturer or the seller. We have covered the points the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has raised, in general.

Sir J. Foster: Is there provision for that in the Bill?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes—in Clause 75.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 37, in page 61, line 38, at end insert:
'of as near as may be equal size'.

No. 38, in line 39, at end insert:
'in the prescribed manner'.

No. 39, in page 62, line 15, leave out from 'section' to end of line 19 and insert:
'that subsection shall have effect as if for the reference to three parts there were substituted a reference to four parts, and the inspector shall send the fourth part to the manufacturer unless he does not know the manufacturer's name and address and is unable after making reasonable inquiries to ascertain them before the expiration of fourteen days from the date when the sample was taken'.

No. 40, in line 42, leave out 'notice' and insert 'part of the sample'.—[Mr. E. Rowlands.]

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 63, line 9, at end insert:
(6) No agricultural analyst shall analyse more than one portion of a sample.
This is the most important remaining matter which we have not succeeded in getting closed in this part of the Bill. We tabled a good number of Amendments, almost all of which have been met by the Government, most of them in full. If this one had been met, we would have achieved a grand slam. I hope that the Government will either accept the Amendment or explain in detail why they are not able to accept it, in view of the undertaking they gave that they would consider the matter again.
When the sample has been split into four parts, they go off to be analysed. Under the existing arrangements, it would be possible for one agricultural analyst to analyse more than one portion of a sample. We submit that this is wrong. In saying that we think it is wrong, we cast absolutely no reflection on the integrity or professional status of agricultural analysts, for whom we all have the greatest admiration. We think that it is wrong to put the onus of conflicting evidence and conflicting paymasters on these people. I have not been in contact with any agricultural analyst, but I should be surprised if agricultural analysts would not prefer to avoid a situation in which they could be analysing more than one portion of a sample.

Mr. Hoy: We discussed a similar Amendment in Committee. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite have felt it necessary to table this Amendment, be-

cause I should have thought that the explanation given in Committee would have set their minds at rest. It is appreciated that the intention is that, by preventing any possibility of one analyst providing evidence for both sides in the same case, justice can clearly be seen to be done. Whilst sympathising with this purpose, I can assure the House that the Amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable.
It is unnecessary because we know from discussions with the analyists' associations—I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) paid tribute to the integrity of these analysts—that they are opposed to their members analyising more than one part of the same sample, not only because of the possibility of bias, but also because they prefer on ethical grounds that the enforcement and the seller's parts should be checked by different analysts. Should two parts of the same sample be received, one from an inspector and one from the seller, the practice is to ask the seller's consent to the transfer of his part to a different analyst. Thus there is no need to give legislative force to what is already the general practice, although I should have no objection to making doubly sure by asking the Associations concerned to circularise their members asking them to adhere to the general practice.
It would also be positively undesirable to accept the Amendment, because it could be used to frustrate enforcement of Part IV. The identity of agricultural analysts for the various local authorities is readily ascertainable, and it would be quite possible for a person whose material had been sampled, and who suspected that unfavourable results would emerge, to send the reference part of the sample to the agricultural analyst concerned without disclosing that it formed part of an enforcement sample. Once it had been analysed by the agricultural analyst the requirements of the Clause, as amended, would have been contravened and the results from the part sent by the inspector could not be used as the basis of proceedings.
I am not suggesting that there would be any general attempt to frustrate the Bill in this way, but it seems unwise to lay ourselves open to this possibility. I think that the hon. Gentleman will concur, and I do not think that anyone can take any objection to this. That is why, after


giving the matter a great deal of consideration since the Committee stage, as I promised, much as we would like to accept the Amendment, as we accepted others, we have found that it would not prove to be workable.

Mr. Jopling: If that is the case, probably we should not press the matter. I am glad that the analysts themselves regard it as unethical and wrong for this sort of thing to happen. At the same time, it is wrong for us in this House necessarily to be bound by the rules of one association.
If the Amendment might be restrictive and might stop prosecutions being carried out where they are necessary, it is only proper that I should beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO SAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 66, line 25, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twentyone'.
It may be for the convenience of the House to consider Government Amendment No. 43 at the same time.
These Amendments fulfil an undertaking given in Committee to consider further the periods provided in subsection (6). I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for the points he raised in Committee which we have incorporated in the Amendments. We gave detailed consideration to the time needed to make requisite arrangements, taking into account possible delays and other contingencies that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members described in Committee. This review has led us to conclude that the extended times proposed in Committee by Opposition Members form a far more satisfactory basis. Accordingly, with one minor difference, they have been incorporated in the Amendments.
The exception to which I have just referred is that notice to the analyst should be required before the seventh rather than the eighth day preceding the court hearing. A clear week seemed a more

normal time than eight days proposed by hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Stodart: I am much obliged to the Minister. The original time in the Bill was impracticable, particularly for the rather remoter areas in the far North. I suspect that what came into my head in putting down the Amendments may have been inspired by a recollection of similar Amendments long ago by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 43, in page 66, line 26, leave out 'third' and insert 'seventh'.

Clause 80

EXERCISE OF POWERS BY INSPECTORS

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 68, line 28, leave out from 'section' to 'shall' in line 33 and insert
'if any person discloses to any other person—

(a) any information with respect to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained by him in premises which he has entered by virtue of this Part of this Act; or
(b) any information obtained by him in pursuance of this Part of this Act,

then, unless the disclosure was made in and for the purpose of the performance by him or any other person of functions under this Part of this Act, he'.
The Amendment substitutes a new subsection which closely follows Section 28(5) of the Trade Descriptions Act, for subsection(4), the objective being to improve the effectiveness of the provision.
The purpose of the subsection is to prevent disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of enforcement of the Bill. On reflection we have decided that the present drafting is defective in two respects. First, the information concerned is restricted to that obtained
in or in connection with
inspectors'
powers under this Part of this Act
This is too limited, in that whilst it would prevent the disclosure of information obtained by an inspector as a direct result of his enforcement activities—such as the results of an analysis—it would


not extend to other confidential information obtained indirectly, such as details of new plant observed while walking through a works en route to the place of sampling.
Sub-paragraph (a) covers this type of case. Secondly the present subsection applies only to inspectors, but there are other officials, for example the assistants, referred to in Clause 73(3) who will also have access to information which it would be undesirable should be disclosed except for the purpose of enforcement. The Amendment overcomes these difficulties.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Jopling: This is a welcome Amendment. Subsection (a) talks about:
any information with respect to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained by him in premises which he has entered by virtue of this Part of this Act:
I hope that subsection (b) will cover any information with respect to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained outside premises. It is somewhat restrictive only to cover information or trade secrets obtained within premises. It may be that a person referred to could have conversations with an analyst or anyone else. We all know how people interested in getting information can collect snippets and build them up, like a jig-saw into a complete picture.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the point is covered by the Amendment, because its purpose is to ensure that the private information that the inspector might pick up en route to his task of sampling should not be disclosed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 88

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION AND INTER- PRETATION AND EXTENT OF PART V

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, Amendment No. 45, in page 74, line 25, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1963'.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed Amendment 46.
These are two drafting Amendments made necessary because an additional subsection introduced in Committee be-

tween subsection (1) and what is now subsection (3) has made references to that Act ambiguous. These Amendments make it clear which Act is referred to.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 74, line 32, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1963'.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Clause 96

AGRICULTURAL TIED COTTAGES

Mr. Stan Newens: I beg to move, Amendment No. 60, in page 78, line 34, after 'other', insert 'no less'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would be convenient if we discussed with this Amendment 62, in page 79, line 1, leave out paragraph (iii) and Amendment 63, in line 20, [Clause 20] at end insert—
(3B) If at the end of any such period of suspension as is mentioned in subsection (3A) no other suitable accommodation has become available the local authority shall make such accommodation available.

Mr. Newens: This Amendment and the others grouped with it deal with the vexed question of the agricultural tied cottage. For many years all those committed to the cause of the agricultural worker have campaigned for the abolition of this system. In the spearhead of the attack has been the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and its predecessor, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) is the most distinguished President.
The policy of the union is that no farm worker should be evicted from a tied cottage before suitable alternative accommodation has been made available. This policy has been accepted by the T.U.C. and the Labour Party.
In 1963, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) stated that a Labour Government would ensure that no occupant of a tied cottage would be evicted before alternative accommodation had been provided. Clause 96 is designed to improve the position of workers by giving a six month period during which workers will not be evicted, subject to certain conditions specified in the Clause. Unfortunately, this is not enough. The


exemptions relieve the owner of the cottage, or anyone else, of the necessity to provide a worker who is to be evicted with alternative accommodation.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 strike out the two conditions which are laid down, namely, when the owner of the cottage is deemed not to find it practicable to carry on his business unless an order for possession is granted, and when it is claimed that greater hardship would be suffered by not implementing the order than by implementing it. Amendment No. 60 goes further and strengthens the first condition on which the six months period would be waived by substituting the words "no less suitable" for the word "suitable".
An owner who is seeking to secure possession of a tied cottage may be able to procure alternative accommodation which is considerably inferior. The Clause as it stands is not sufficiently strong to prevent occupants of tied cottages from being driven into sub-standard accommodation. Those who have had experience of this will know that this is not hypothetical but has occurred in the past.
My most basic objection to Clause 96 is that it merely postpones the day of eviction. When the occupant has to vacate a tied cottage he must find alternative accommodation. He will not normally be able to buy a property, as he will be unable to obtain a mortgage. In most parts of the country he will be unable to find privately rented accommodation, and his only hope lies with the local council. Many councils will not consider rehousing an evicted person until the court order for possession has been made, and, therefore, the six months period merely postpones the evil day. This uncertain prospect may cause considerable mental stress to people who are evicted.
Amendment No. 63 imposes on the local authority the responsibility for rehousing an occupant of a tied cottage if no other accommodation has become available after the six months suspension.
One can say that there are defects in such a provision. There is a danger that a tied cottage might be used as a lever to obtain a council house. There is the argument that no other houses may be in the possession of the local authority.

But it is invidious and obnoxious to turn out a family merely because its breadwinner has to change his employer, and, if the State deems that that is possible, a duty must be laid on the housing authority to rehouse anyone subjected to the process.

Mr. R. W. Brown: But would Amendment No. 63 stop a local authority putting the members of such a family into a half-way house and leaving them there for some time?

Mr. Newens: I do not believe that a half-way house would be regarded as suitable alternative accommodation and, in that event, the Amendment would preclude a family from being put into that type of accommodation.
In recent years, it is fair to say that the number of evictions from agricultural tied cottages has fallen, one of the reasons for it being the legislation introduced by this Government in the shape of the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964, and the Rent Act, 1965. There is no doubt that those Measures have done a great deal to protect agricultural workers. However, one must recognise that many farmers regard eviction as quite obnoxious and undesirable. I know of cases in which farmers have only been willing to obtain court orders as a last resort, and they have done so with extreme reluctance. Certainly I do not attack the general run of farmers. I believe that the system is very unfortunate from their point of view as well.
In my own area of West Essex, the situation has improved in recent years. But I can recall a number of evictions taking place in the past. A member of my constituency Labour Party was elected to the executive of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. In due course, his employment was terminated. I understand that the reason was that he was unable to spend sufficient time on his job, in the eyes of his employer, because he had to attend meetings. His employment was terminated because he was doing this form of public service—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and subsequently he was turned out of his house. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to sneer, but this is a very serious matter for the people who are subjected to this sort of treatment.
There is an article in the current edition of "The Land Worker" which deals with the case of a Mr. Preston who has been evicted from a tied property in Buckinghamshire. He is married with five children aged between 5 and 9 years. The worker had become redundant, and the judge ruled that no further extension could be granted as it would cause hardship to the farmer—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman opposite appear to be amused at this. That is quite disgraceful. This is a serious matter, and we should devote just as much attention to it as we have to certain other Clauses in the Bill.
I accept that there are many cases in which the farmers are not to blame, but neither are the workers to blame. I can think of cases in my constituency which have arisen in the last couple of years in which the workers concerned were certainly not at fault. In one case where a man was unable to lift heavy loads without injuring himself, as a result of which he had to give up his job, the farmer had to seek a court order. Another case concerned a worker who had quarrelled with his employer and had his employment terminated. A further case involved a worker who wanted to change his employment after nearly 20 years in the same job.
2.15 a.m.
These cases still arise. Over the last four or five years I know that the N.U.A.W. has taken up a number of cases. We should recognise that this is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is absolutely degrading to a worker to be tied to his job.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Minister, when dealing with this matter in Committee, at c. 895, stated that since 1965 there had in fact been only 17 evictions under the Section to which he is referring?

Mr. Newens: I am certainly prepared to bear that in mind. But there have been hundreds of cases involving court proceedings where eviction has been avoided only at the last moment. During the proceedings the worker concerned and his family have been subjected to considerable stress, not knowing whether they would be among the unlucky families.
This is more degrading than in the past, first, because today there is a considerable housing shortage which makes it difficult for workers to find alternative accommodation and, secondly, because industrial conditions have improved considerably. The agricultural worker is a skilled man who is entitled to be accorded proper dignity in our community. Eviction can mean the break up of a family. Hon. Members who have dealt with the problem know that I am not exaggerating.
The provisions of Clause 96 do not go far enough. In Committee the Opposition opposed even this moderate improvement. It was disgraceful, and I hope that agricultural workers will take note of it. The Clause is far too weak. The National Union of Agricultural Workers has already sent out a circular which is the start of a new campaign to try to improve the position. I believe that something should be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendments, or at least promise that the Clause will be strengthened in another place.
In this matter I pay tribute to the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North in fighting this issue. In what I am seeking to do tonight, I hope that I have been of help in the struggle which his organisation has been carrying on in many parts of the country for many years.

Mr. Mackie: rose——

Mr. Hazell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hazell: On a point of order. I was on my feet before the Minister rose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to select speakers.

Mr. Mackie: We all know the emotion which can be engendered on this subject. I know how strongly my hon. Friends the Members for Epping (Mr. Newens) and Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) feel about it.
These Amendments have been put forward, and my hon. Friend's remarks have been made, on the basis of doing away with the tied cottage, but the Clause which my hon. Friend is seeking to


amend will help Section 33 of the Rent Act, 1965 to give more security to farm workers in their cottages. I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, but I must tell him quite frankly that my right hon. Friend and I cannot accept them.
If my hon. Friend considers the matter carefully, he will realise that the first Amendment would provide that the alternative accommodation should not merely be suitable, but no less suitable. No less suitable than what? Presumably the existing accommodation, but all that matters in this context is whether the other accommodation offered is suitable. Whether it is more, or less, suitable than the existing accommodation will be a matter of opinion in each case, and not a matter upon which we can usefully legislate. A cottage which is no less suitable than the existing accommodation might well be unsuitable, and I think that my hon. Friend made this point himself. The Amendment would create confusion and difficulty and put an obstacle in the way of finding alternative accommodation. It might even discourage improvements to tied cottages.
The second Amendment strikes at the root of the tied cottage system. In many of the discussions which I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North and his colleagues, they have been adamant that they do not want to do away with the tied cottage system. They merely want to give their members greater security.
Tied cottages are provided to enable farm workers, and particularly stockmen, to live on the job. If possession cannot be obtained when it is really necessary, this will discourage the provision of these cottages. This part of the Clause was looked at very carefully before we decided on this form of wording. If the Amendment were accepted, a widow, or an invalid farmer, particularly in a remote district, would be unable physically to continue on the farm.

Mr. Hazell: My hon. Friend said that we were not against the tied cottage system. That is not true. My hon. Friend knows that we have said that we do not want to see the cottages pulled down or anything like that. Our policy—and it is the policy of the Labour Government and of the T.U.C.—is that suitable alternative accommodation

should be provided before any farm worker is ejected from his farm. That is my union's policy, and my hon. Friend knows that the argument can be reinforced by facts which have been submitted to him time and again, in spite of his opposition.

Mr. Mackie: I agree. My hon. Friend says that his union is against eviction from the tied cottage, and I am coming to that.
The second Amendment could, in many cases, destroy the livelihood of an elderly or invalid farmer who relied on a tied cottage, with help in it.
The third Amendment would prevent a court from taking any account of hardship to an incoming tenant. I have thought this over. On my farm in Lincolnshire a young bachelor took a job with a tied cottage for his mother to live in. The family furniture was moved into the cottage, and then his mother died. He gave up the job for another in Lincoln, where he took digs. It was no hardship for him to give up that tied cottage. If the Amendment were made no amount of hardship for the incoming tenant would count for anything, even if he were forced to leave his family and go into expensive furnished accommodation.
The fourth Amendment would oblige local authorities to house ex-farm workers who could not get alternative accommodation. This is the essence of the pledge given in 1963—that no occupant of a tied cottage should be evicted unless suitable alternative accommodation was provided. That was a statement of our aims, but I cannot accept that it could be taken as a categorical commitment. The Clause goes a long way by providing more time to find alternative accommodation, but we cannot legislate on the basis that in the last resort local authorities will invariably provide it. They are already doing well. Since the 1965 Rent Act there have been only four or five evictions a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North says that that is too many, and I agree with him but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping agreed, the position has improved considerably in recent years. That was one of my main points in the debate in Committee. There has been a


tremendous improvement in the last 30 or 40 years.

Mr. Derek Page: If my hon. Friend agrees that the few continuing evictions are too many, will he undertake to keep a continuing check on the evictions that continue under the new legislation and give an undertaking that if the position does not improve he will review and strengthen the legislation at a later date?

Mr. Mackie: No. I shall keep an eye on the number of evictions that take place, as has been done since the 1965 Act, but I cannot give a guarantee that no evictions of any farm worker will take place. I stressed in Committee that there is a difference—because of the personal relationship and the position of the house, and everything else—between evicting a person from a farm cottage and evicting him from a council house. Evictions take place all over the country for various reasons, in other forms of housing—council houses and other houses. An hon. Member says "Downing Street". That is wishful thinking.
I could not possibly give a guarantee that if there were any evictions we should re-examine the position. We want to see evictions down to the absolute minimum. We think that what we have done in the six months' suspension period will help. To give time under the Clause would decrease the number of evictions, but legislation will not provide houses where no houses exist, or give ex-farm workers absolute priority, whatever their circumstances, over all other classes of people on housing lists—people who may be in far greater housing need. Nobody could argue for that. Such legislation would discourage initiative to find alternative accommodation.
People would become farm workers to jump the housing queue, and that would be bad social and agricultural policy. We have gone as far as it is possible to go, reasonably and humanely, and I trust that my hon. Friend will think carefully about what I have said and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Hawkins: These Amendments, although well intended, are impractical. If the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) had read the debate on the

issue in Committee—one would have thought that he would do so—he would have realised that the Opposition tried to frame their speeches so as not to inflame the situation once again. I have known the area where the N.U.A.W. is strongest all my life and I have the greatest sympathy for its work. In my youth this matter was a burning issue almost every week. Everyone living in the countryside deplored the fact that there were evictions from farm cottages. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that I am as sincere as he is on this matter.
Nevertheless, whatever may be said, this is not a burning issue. It is, of course, brought up at N.U.A.W. conferences. It is one of the matters which have to be kept alive to keep members, but it is not a burning question.

Mr. Derek Page: ; Nonsense.

Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Gentleman went among farm workers as much as I do—and I have as much experience as he has—he would realise that it is unnecessary to bring the matter up. It is quite impractical to say that farms in certain cases can be run without key workers and without houses adjoining them. Again, the length of notice which has been given recently has been about five or six months.
When I became a Member of this House, I wrote to the N.U.A.W. saying I would like to help in any way it saw fit to take me into its confidence. I was told that the Labour Party was quite capable of looking after the union, and of course I accepted that. But it was in my constituency that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) made the speech that is so often quoted now in Norfolk. In Swaffham on 17th July, 1963, he stated that there must be security of tenure for all. He said:
We will ensure that no occupant of a tied cottage is evicted until alternative accommodation is provided.
It is that speech which has continually upset relations all the way through this business of the tied cottage. I am sorry that he is no longer present in the Chamber to call upon the Government to carry out that promise.
If it were a practical proposition, it would be a good thing to carry out Amendment No. 63. It would be splendid


if local authorities could provide housing for anyone likely to be evicted, but there are just not enough houses available in the countryside for that to happen. There are waiting lists and it would mean that anyone in such a position could jump the queue ahead of a young married couple who had been waiting perhaps two or three years for a council house.
I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment, because I believe that the Government have gone as far as possible in trying to meet the situation, which is very difficult. In terms of carrying on a farm, it is impossible to do so without a certain number of tied cottages. I hoped that we would not have to go through this whole matter again because it is not a burning issue at present in the countryside. I believe that the problem is now being solved by co-operation between the N.U.A.W. and the N.F.U. and that any further alteration of the law would make farming impossible on many small stock farms.

Mr. Hazell: May I first express my appreciation of the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and his colleagues to put forward Amendments on this subject? I understand that only one Amendment is being taken, but it provides the opportunity to discuss the whole issue.
I entirely dispute the view of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that the issue of the tied cottage is not a burning question. It has been a burning question among farm workers ever since a trade union was created for farm workers. The fact that the Labour Government by the Rent Act, 1965, mitigated some of the worst features of the system has not in any way diminished the strength of the views of the farm workers. I know this because I probably meet and mingle with more farm workers than anyone else now in the Chamber. I never go to any county but that these views are forcefully put to me. I accept that in some counties the problem is more vicious—and I used the word I used in Committee—than in others, but the problem exists everywhere.
It has been suggested that because there have been only 17 actual evictions which my union has brought to the attention of Ministers, the problem has been

virtually solved. Unfortunately, we do not cater for all farm workers in England and Wales. Yet since 1st January, 1966, we have had to defend about 2,000 cottage cases in the courts. In the 11 months 1st January, 1969, to November, 1969, we defended in 466 cases.
This is not a trivial matter. It is serious when in only 11 months 466 families in rural Britain suffer all the anxieties and tribulations of the threat of eviction. It is the wives who bear the brunt of this experience. There is no greater hardship than being threatened with eviction from a cottage because of something that may have transpired at the place of work.
My union had long talks with my right hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. When the Bill eventually emerged, it was only narrowly decided by my executive committee after full consideration not to oppose Clause 96. When the Clause was debated in Committee, I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) whether, if the Clause were adopted, it would be the end of the road of farm workers' agitation against the system of the tied cottage. I said that we recognised that that Clause was a modest improvement, for which we were grateful, but neither that Clause nor the one which we are discussing tonight should be regarded by the farm workers and my organisation as the end of the road. That can only come when the farm worker and his family are convinced that, if something happened during the course of their work, before they could be ejected, suitable alternative accommodation should be provided. We do not mind who provides it—whether the worker himself, the farmer or the local authority.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping for ventilating this issue once more. It is still a burning question among the farm workers of Britain.

Mr. Derek Page: I have already welcomed in Committee the improvements which the present Bill proposes in security for tenants of agricultural tied cottages, and I welcome the Amendments.
I assure the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that when I groaned while he was speaking I was not implying that he did not get among farm workers as much as any of us. I was groaning to hear his opinion that this was not a burning issue. I get loads of mail on the subject, and it is continually raised at local branch meetings of the N.U.A.W. When the original Bill was published, a packed meeting was immediately called at King's Lynn Town Hall, where the feelings of members were made abundantly clear—and these feelings remain.
The Minister said that the number of evictions was too high, yet when I asked for an undertaking that he would strengthen the legislation if necessary, he said that the Bill was as much as could be humanly done. He cannot have it both ways: if the number of evictions continuing is too high, he must do more. He must undertake to toughen up the legislation in twelve months. I ask him to think again about such an undertaking.
Two arguments have been used by hon. Members opposite against toughening up the protection. One is that it is unfair to the farmer and the other is that the number of evictions is trivial anyway. They cannot have it both ways, either. If the number of evictions is trivial, the amount of hardship caused to farmers would also be trivial.
While I welcome such improvements as there have been, I will not be satisfied until the legislation is strengthened so that no family find themselves out on the road.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Godber: I intervene only briefly in this debate. I would say straightaway that my hon. Friends and I have given this matter a great deal of thought. We understand the sincerity with which Members who represent the N.U.A.W. put their case, and we always listen with respect to what they have to say.
I was rather sorry that the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) made one or two comments which seemed to indicate that we on this side consider this a trivial matter. We do not. It may have been the way he was putting his case which provoked some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Newens: Certain hon. Members on the back benches behind the right hon. Gentleman were laughing very vigorously when I was speaking. I assumed they were laughing in connection with what I was saying, or that they did not regard the matter as sufficiently important to listen to. That is why I made those remarks.

Mr. Godber: There was apparently something else which was causing my hon. Friends that amusement and it had nothing whatever to do with this matter. It would be unfortunate if it went out from this House that my hon. Friends considered this matter as trivial in any sense. As I say, we consider this matter as one which is and must be of great concern to anyone living in the countryside. I myself have been involved in the ownership of tied cottages all my life. I have never evicted anyone, and I would go to great lengths to avoid doing so. I am sure that that represents the view of the vast majority of farmers in this country. I was glad that the hon. Member for Epping made clear that he believes farmers do go to great lengths to avoid evicting people.
One has, however, to come back to the fact that in farming it is necessary to have somebody on the spot, and this is the point which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary put so clearly. Where livestock has to be looked after, then, whether one likes it or not, there must be somebody on the spot to look after it. It was this fact which caused the creation of the tied cottage system, and as long as livestock farming exists I do not see how one can get away from that fact.
It is only fair to recall that where, in exceptional circumstances, somebody still has to be evicted—and the cases are now a small number, as the hon. Member admitted—that is for the benefit of another worker, who has to be right on the spot to carry out the work he is needed for. Otherwise, no eviction would take place. One has to have some regard to the fact that a worker who comes in to take the place of another who has left cannot effectively do the job unless he is on the spot. So this is not a matter of worker versus employer but of fair play between one worker and another who is actively engaged in looking after livestock on a farm. I do not believe that,


with the best will in the world, one can avoid the tied cottage system altogether.

Mr. Newens: The right hon. Gentleman will surely agree that we are not merely concerned with tied cottages for stockmen. The tied cottage system applies to many other cases. Many of the cases which have gone to court have been about cottages not necessarily attached to the place where the stock were kept or where the work had to be done.

Mr. Godber: I think that is so, because the type of farming in arable areas has changed and now not so much stock is kept on a farm as in the old days when there were stock on every farm. But one cannot in law really differentiate between one type of farming and another, because a farm where today there is no stock might revert to stockfarming.
The 1965 Act has certainly been shown to have been of very real benefit. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) gave us some figures which showed convincingly how effective the Act has been, with 460 cases which had arisen in 11 months and only 16 evictions in the last five years. It seems to me that his figures prove that the law as it is now is an effective safeguard in all but the extreme minority of cases. It seems to me, therefore, to justify the retention of the position under the 1965 Act.
My colleagues and I resisted the new proposals in Committee because we were worried that they were eroding still further the position of the farmer, particularly the stockfarmer, in being able to get his cottage in time when there is a change over of workers. Considering the position under the 1965 Act, and since the number of evictions has been so low, it seems that what the Government are proposing goes a long way towards meeting the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee.
We feel that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has put the case effectively and correctly in regard to the needs of farming. He had to do that, for any representative of the Ministry must ensure that farming can be carried on effectively and efficiently. It is on this basis that a provision relating to tied cottages must remain in some form or other; and we must consider this in terms of the erosion that has occurred, the impact on em-

ployers and the difficulties that are caused. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will, therefore, accept that for effective farming it is necessary to retain the tied cottage system in some form and that it would be wrong for the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Albert Booth: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said it would not be practicable to legislate on the basis of local authorities being required to provide houses for those evicted from agricultural tied cottages. I submit that it is the only possible basis on which to deal with this matter. Private landlords will not make houses available for these people. I cannot imagine farmers making such provision within their housing arrangements. If they could, this problem would not have arisen.
Local authorities already provide a form of housing for tied cottage workers in that key industrial workers are provided with houses in many parts of the country. The numbers involved there are vastly greater than the number evicted from agricultural tied cottages. If there are only about five such evictions a year, that should not be outwith the capacity of local authorities.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's next argument amazed me, for he said that to take the step proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) would mean giving priority in the provision of housing to agricultural, or former agricultural, workers. Why not? The Labour Party should be seen to be giving such priority. My party came into existence for this, among other reasons, and I hope that the Government will make a stand on this basis.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 98

FINANCING OF AGRICULTURAL TRAINING

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 80, line 33, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 41 and insert:
'not be so raised, but—

(a) subject to subsection (5) of this section, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity shall from time to time certify an amount as being one required by the Board for meeting such expenses other than


expenses by way of payment of interest on, or repayment of, any loan, and shall pay the amount so certified to the Board;
(b) the said Secretary of State shall also from time to time pay to the Board any amounts paid or payable by them by way of interest on, or repayment of, any loan made to them by a third party so far as so made for the purpose of defraying relevant expenses; and
(c) the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall pay to the said Secretary of State—

(i) any amount certified by that Secretary of State under paragraph (a) of this subsection, and
(ii) any amounts certified by that Secretary of State either as payable by him by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection or as payable to him by way of interest on, or repayment of, any loan made by him so far as so made for the purpose of defraying relevant expenses'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Mackie: It is convenient to discuss the two Amendments together because the first is incomplete without the second.
The sole purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee when debating an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I said:
…the Government accept that the Board's expenditure"—
that is, the Agricultural Training Board's expenditure—
should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as that of other boards. We are, therefore, prepared to provide for negative Resolution procedure on Report. This will entail considerable redrafting of the Clause to provide for approvals of the expenditure involved to be given by way of Statutory Instruments by the appropriate Ministers in relation to Great Britain and Northern Ireland"—.[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th February, 1970; c. 924–5.]
That is what we have done in the Amendments now before the House. The Amendments are rather extensive and they may seem complicated, but they are consequential on the introduction of the negative Resolution procedure. In order to provide for that, the sums required for meeting the expenses of the training board in Great Britain and the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland will have to be certified or

approved by the United Kingdom Ministers concerned by means of statutory instruments. These will be subject to annulment.
I am advised that it would not be legally proper to make the cost of servicing loans the subject of a statutory instrument. The interest on and repayment of past loans is a firm commitment which cannot logically be prayed against, but Parliament will be able to pray against the Secretary of State's certificate of the sums required for meeting the Board's other expenses which will be incurred in carrying out its proposals. I think that this provides the opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny that is required.
For Northern Ireland the provisions are more straightforward. In order to provide for a statutory instrument to be made, it is necessary for approval to be given to the sums required by United Kingdom Ministers. For this purpose we have taken the four agricultural Ministers, all of whom have an interest in the approval of the sums required, as distinct from the payment which will be my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
Lastly and more generally, I should explain that the new procedure will apply to expenditure to be incurred in the financial year 1971–72 and succeeding years. By the time the Bill has received the Royal Assent expenses for the financial year 1970–71 will be being incurred and, as the House knows, arrangements have been made for taking them into account in the Annual Review. I think the House will agree that it would be unrealistic and confusing to represent the expenditure as open to debate at some uncertain time in the course of the year in which it is being incurred.

Mr. Godber: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments. Unfortunately, I was prevented from being present in Committee when this matter was debated. I have always felt strongly that there was a need for such a provision and I wrote to the Minister about it at an early stage. If changes had to be made in regard to the financing of the Agricultural Training Board, it would be wrong to take away the power which previously existed for expenditure to be debated in this House. That applies to


every training board under the Industrial Training Act. Purely by chance, because of the way in which the change had been made, the power was taken away.
The Government have seen the force of this argument and have been good enough to introduce these Amendments. I believe we proposed that there should be affirmative Orders, but the fact that there will be a negative Order gives us the opportunity to pray against it. That is the main thing we wanted, to enable the Opposition of the day always to have the opportunity to challenge expenditure publicly in this House. We regard that as a very useful safeguard.
Having regard to the somewhat chequered history of the Agricultural Training Board so far, we think this an important safeguard which may help to create that greater degree of confidence which hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see achieved. We all believe in training, but we have to consider the way in which it is to be carried out and financed. I think that with this Amendment we can achieve the best result after the rather unfortunate happenings of the early days of the Training Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 49, in page 81, line 24, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 30 and insert:
'Ministers,
then, subject to subsection (5) of this section, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall pay into the Exchequer of Northern Ireland any amount from time to time certified by the said Ministry of Finance with the approval of the Ministers as being required for meeting expenses incurred on or after 1st April 1970 in giving effect to those proposals.
In this subsection "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State concerned with agriculture in Northern Ireland.
(5) In the case of expenses to be incurred after 31st March 1971, any certificate of the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) of this section, and any approval of the Ministers under subsection (4) of this section to the certifying of any amount by the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland, shall be given before the expenses are incurred, and shall be so given by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Clause 99

AMENDMENTS OF DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1950 AS RESPECTS IMPORTA- TION AND VACCINATION, ETC.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 82, line 6, at beginning insert—
Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it would be convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 51 in page 82, line 12, at beginning, insert—
Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.
and Amendment No. 53 in page 82, line 23, at end insert—
(4)(a) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall come into operation on such date not earlier than twelve months after the passing of this Act as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may by order prescribe.
(b) An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument.

Mr. Temple: I rise as the clock strikes 3 a.m. and I give an undertaking to be as brief as possible on a complex and difficult subject. The object of this Amendment is to defer the operation of the reserve powers taken by the Government for ring vaccination against foot and mouth for one year. Then they would be brought in by Statutory Instrument if the Government wished.
Up to now, there have been neither national nor international consultations on these reserve powers. I readily admit that foot-and-mouth disease is probably the biggest international animal health problem in the world today and there is nothing simple about it. However, every aspect of ring vaccination should have the most careful scrutiny before being put into operation.
I shall hand the Leader of the House a bouquet because when he was Minister of Agriculture during the 1967–68 outbreak, the Government had reserve powers they could have used for vaccination in that great emergency, but they kept their nerve and the reserve powers were never used.
I have another bouquet for the present Minister who has also done a magnificent job on the acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee. I shall not quote from


that committee's report, but if hon. Members want to look at the recommendations they are on pages 93 and 94.
The first and principal recommendation of the committee is that the slaughter policy by itself should be implemented and that only in certain circumstances should vaccination be held as a reserve power. I congratulate the Minister on doing practically everything asked of him by the Northumberland Committee on that second point, but reading its recommendations carefully, one finds that it does not make it necessary for the Government to have the reserve powers which they are taking. Our Amendment seeks that they should not operate for a year, which would give time for careful thought.
The present position is that the Government are to use the slaughter policy—I want to be absolutely fair in stating my case—but that it will be backed up if necessary by ring vaccination, and the Government have taken powers to keep a revolving stock of vaccine at a cost of over £500,000 a year, which is quite an insurance premium to be paying annually!
Many explanations have been given on how this policy will work out. I shall quote only from the latest information, given in a letter by the Private Secretary to the Minister to the Royal Agricultural Society of England on 25th March, when he said:
It is not proposed that it will be imposed with every initial outbreak of the disease.
That is now acknowledged by the Minister, and that is therefore the policy. The vaccine will be used in certain circumstances. The slaughter policy by itself, the policy of the Gowers Committee, is now, because of the Government proposals, a thing of the past.
There are strong reasons for advocating this Amendment, otherwise we should not be bringing it forward at this late hour. In evidence to the Northumberland Committee, and indeed, today, all interests are unanimous that they do not want ring vaccination. This was the evidence of the National Farmers' Union on behalf of the commercial men, of all the breed societies representing all cattle, sheep and pig breeders, of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and of the British Veterinary Association.
The Northumberland Committee recommended reserve powers of ring vaccination in certain circumstances only, basing its recommendation on Danish experience. The Minister has made it clear that the Danish experience will be varied in that the Government's reserve powers will be used to vaccinate pigs. Pigs are particularly difficult subjects for vaccination. I have very recent information to give the House from an impeccable but I regret to say non-attributable source which is very much concerned with Denmark.
As I understand it, in the last outbreak in Denmark in December of last year "A" virus was the cause. There were severe subsidiary outbreaks in vaccinated stock within 14 days. The House will accept that immunity is not gained in cattle or sheep until ten days have passed. My informant from Denmark also says that the excreta from all vaccinated animals is extremely dangerous. I am afraid that vaccination could pose a good many more problems than it would solve. I give the House only these examples from Denmark, though I could give many more examples of the problems raised by reason of the use of vaccine.
Now I turn to the international repercussions of the policies proposed by the Government. Here I again have up-to-date information from another non-attributable but extremely well informed source. The United Kingdom does not allow vaccinated stock into our country because it is acknowledged that they are dangerous. So we should not be exactly surprised if other countries would react in a similar manner! In Committee I raised the question of consultations with the Northern Ireland Government and with the Government of the Irish Repub-
We have not had discussions as to how we are to proceed with them".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 3rd March, 1970, c. 979.]
that is, with the Northern Ireland and Irish Government negotiations.
My advice is that those discussions may go very badly. My reason for saying this is that certainly the Irish Republican Government have at the moment a very excellent meat export business amounting to about £10 million a year with the United States and they are looking forward to building up their meat export business with Japan. The United


States and Japan are two of the most animal-health conscious countries in the world. None of us would wish to have a barrier brought down as between Ireland and ourselves with regard to the interchange of livestock.
Animal health problems are very difficult and complex. I ask about international repercussions because I greatly fear that other countries will adopt the same attitudes as those which I visualise will be adopted by the Irish Republic.
In Committee I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would do a cost evaluation exercise of his proposals. I may have been wrong, but I thought that he took that very lightly. There is no doubt that at present the cost is a very serious matter. There are more "knowns" now than there were only a few weeks ago. We now know that the cost of the revolving vaccine will be about £½ million a year. We know that in the outbreaks which occurred from 1950 to 1966—a period of 17 years—the slaughter policy cost less than £½ million a year, less than the cost of the revolving stock of vaccine. Averaging out the cost of the big outbreak in 1967–68, the total cost of the slaughter policy works out at £1·7 million a year over a period of 20 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman will come to his Amendment, which seeks to postpone the date for 12 months.

Mr. Temple: I am seeking to postpone the date so that all these factors may be considered. This is my third and last factor, because I promised to cut my speech down, and I am regrettably already leaving out a tremendous number of good points.
There is no doubt, with hindsight, that the 1967–68 outbreak need never have cost as much as it did. It should never have been as extensive as it was. That is not to imply any criticism of the Ministry.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman needs to expand on that point. It is a new one, and very relevant.

Mr. Temple: I will give the hon. Gentleman one explanation, though I could give many. One is that the disease

was spread by milk tankers. This is in the Northumberland Report. The air blown off by one tanker contained enough virus to infect about 8 million cattle. That is now known and acknowledged. That is why I say, with hindsight, that this need not have occurred. To put it no higher, our livestock interests and the public are entitled to see the Ministry's thinking on paper with regard to the justification for spending over £½ million per annum on the revolving stock of vaccine, having regard to the average costs that I have mentioned.
The Government are organising a conference with the Animal Health Division of the Ministry on 21st April. But this is not simply a matter of animal health. Export problems are involved, and there are also international complications. All those should be resolved within a year before the Government take the final decision to have these reserve powers on the Statute Book. I could give many examples of how difficult these international discussions will be, because I know from personal experience just how difficult and touchy other countries are about animal health regulations. I trust that I have convinced the House that it would be wise to defer the implementation of these powers for one year, and that the Government will give very sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Farmers in my constituency have asked me to support the Amendments. They are particularly anxious that the period of one year's deferment should be agreed. They point out that there has been very little discussion on the Clause with the various interested parties on the vaccination of livestock, and especially that there have been no consultations with the countries where livestock is to be exported. This is a very important aspect of the problem.
The Minister has been reminded time and again of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which considered the slaughter policy to be the best method of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease when it occurs in Great Britain, it recommended that it should be continued, and that only if the recommendations on the importation of meat were not carried out effectively would it be desirable to revert to a policy of vaccination.
3.15 a.m.
It also recommended that as part of contingency plans ring vaccination material should be kept in constant readiness. Many feel that the existence of these stocks might be a temptation and that they might be used in an emergency. The committee also pointed out that the only country where ring vaccination was practised is Denmark and that far more is needed to be known about the effects before this country followed its example.
My farmers are also concerned with the problem of the export of livestock. Here I would pay a tribute to the excellent work done by the British Agricultural Export Council. I wonder whether the Minister has had any consultations with that body as to the effect that this will have on exports, if the year's deferment is not agreed to. I very much hope that this proposal for the deferment will be accepted.

Mr. Noble: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and others. Some years ago I had the task of being chairman of the British Livestock Export Group, as it was then called, and we were continually, and inevitably, in discussions with other countries and farmers overseas about ways and means whereby livestock could be imported into those countries. Often we reached the position where the farmers wanted to import the stock and the Government of that country was looking for reasons to refuse the importation. One of the main reasons was any question dealing with foot-and-mouth disease.
It is certain that if we move from the present position when we will not allow in animals which have been vaccinated and practise vaccination here, then every country which wants to prevent our livestock getting in will turn round and say that it cannot accept our livestock, pointing out that this was the policy that we pursued six months ago.
There is every reason for taking this matter slowly. All sections of the farming community are worried about it and feel that they do not know enough about it. There is every reason for more consultation. On the export side it is vital that proper consultations are held with

other countries, or else very great damage will be done.

Sir J. Foster: My constituency had perhaps the biggest incidence of foot-and-mouth disease, on an area basis. Although my constituency is largely industrial, practically all of the agricultural part was laid waste by this dreadful disease. The House will agree that the Amendment, which has the support of farmers in my constituency, is aimed at getting the best policy.
The Government have the power, under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, to vaccinate any animal which comes into contact with an infected animal. The Bill extends the power to any infected area so declared by the Minister. The Amendment delays this extended power for one year to give the Government the opportunity to think again and not bring into operation ring vaccination.
It is hoped that, after consultations have taken place, the Government will see that the policy of ring vaccination is wrong. It affects our exports, and, if it were brought in in an emergency, many countries would not import cattle from us. It would also prohibit or seriously impede the movement of animals for breeding purposes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating not the merits of Clause 99, but whether we should delay the coming into operation of certain provisions for 12 months.

Sir J. Foster: With respect, we want to postpone the operation because we are opposed to ring vaccination. It is legitimate to propose an Amendment to allow the Government to think again about the wisdom of bringing in a policy of ring vaccination. If at the end of the year the Government are still minded to use ring vaccination in an outbreak, there will not be much point in postponing it for a year. The postponement is of no value unless it leads the Government to the conclusion that ring vaccination is not to be used in dealing with an outbreak.
By extending vaccination to any infected area the Government are running counter to the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which said that, if its advice about imports were


accepted, it was not in favour of the Government using or extending their powers of ring vaccination. The Government had the power during the last outbreak, but they did not use it. Use of the power would give approval to the policy of ring vaccination.
We want the power to be postponed for a year, so that international and national consultations will persuade the Government that the Northumberland Committee was right and that ring vaccination will harm our exports, so that the Government at the end of the year will not bring in an order to apply ring vaccination to an infected area. There is a certain lack of logic in this, as the Government already have this power.
I ask the Government to examine this again and come to the conclusion that they should not use either the power they have or the extended power which they are seeking in the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins: It is obvious that our exports should be taken into account when considering this problem of ring vaccination, and the reason why I support my hon. Friends in asking for a year's postponement is the practical application of ring vaccination. Once it was started it would do great harm to our livestock industry.
We have lived with the present policy for many years, and we have all hated to see the slaughter which has been necessary from time to time. But we have realised that it is our only hope of containing the disease. We have had one exceptionally bad outbreak, the report on it has come out clearly in favour of continuing the slaughter policy, and we must go into the deepest detail with all the powers concerned, nationally and internationally. For that purpose, this year of postponement is vital.
My own county of Norfolk does not have an immense amount of stock, but there are a large number of pigs. Many 50-acre fields carry hundreds of sows. The practical application of ring vaccination would be an immense problem. With veterinary surgeons and vaccinators moving about, the chances are that there would be a greater spread of the disease than would result from continuing the slaughter policy. I urge this postpone-

ment in order that the matter can be thoroughly reconsidered.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I became interested in this matter when we had the terrible outbreak last year. School children in my constituency collected money to send one of our clean groups of cattle from Suffolk to start a new herd in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), where, very sadly, it began.
I have another interest in that my constituency has possibly the heaviest concentration of pigs in the country. The Minister recently visited a bacon factory there. Shortly, we are to have what will probably be the largest bacon establishment in Europe. So I have a considerable interest in this matter, and I urge the Government to listen to the wise words of my hon. Friends who ask them to pause for reflection before they "go hard" on this policy.
The first reason why the Government should delay is that they are taking considerable powers. Among others, they are taking power to declare a whole area to be infected. This will mean that many firms could be placed at risk. They could be ordered to accept inspectors and vaccinators, who would have the right to enter their farms and vaccinate their stock.
Before these powers are taken, I believe that the Government should consult those concerned very much more fully than they have done so far. The President of the National Pig Breeders Association is a constituent of mine. He tells me that he and his organisation were virtually not consulted on this matter. I cannot believe that that is right when a serious step of this kind is being taken. I understand, in addition, that the other breed societies in the country were not brought into discussion before the decision was taken.
3.30 a.m.
There is the question whether there was consultation with the countries to which we export animals. I refer the Minister to a Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) on 16th March, when he asked
…with what countries in the last four years his Department has been in consultation regarding the use of inactivated foot-and-mouth vaccine?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1969; Vol. 798, c. 56.]


The Minister's reply was "None". He admitted openly that there had been no consultation formally with any other countries. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to undertake these discussions with the countries to which we wish to export livestock.
Another reason why delay would be wise concerns cost. I am advised that, whether or not the vaccine is used, simply to produce, stockpile, and have it available would cost not less than £500,000 a year. That is a substantial sum. Excluding the period of the last epidemic, it is rather more than the annual cost of the slaughter policy. I submit that by rushing this matter forward the Minister is not giving himself time to work out the cost benefit of this large investment. Again, the Amendment would give him this year in which to work out the cost implications rather more than he has so far done.
The third reason why I ask the Government to pause and reflect is that they are going a long way beyond what the Northumberland Committee recommended. When a committee is set up we presumably have a good deal of confidence in its members. I am certain that in the chairman of that committee all of us have a great deal of confidence. The committee made recommendations which the Minister will know virtually by heart. It is a big step to go beyond its conclusions, and to do so so quickly.
The Northumberland Committee recommended that vaccination should be kept as a reserve power, a fall-back emergency action, only to be taken if all else failed. The Government are moving away from that very quickly. I think that they ought to pause and reflect before making this decision.
My last point concerns pigs, in which I have had some interest. The only country where ring vaccination is known to be practised is Denmark. I hope that the Minister will not say that he can take the Danish experience and apply it in this country. He has not had time to study the situation in Denmark at all deeply. Moreover, conditions in Denmark, which presumably form the basis of at least some of the Government's

thinking, are by no means comparable with conditions here. Although Denmark has fairly heavy concentrations of livestock, it has comparatively little movement. I believe that it has six livestock markets, whereas we have more than 1,000. The Minister would be wise to take the time to send his experts to Denmark to study the situation there more deeply. We ask for this additional time so that he can do that.
I am reminded that again my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester, on 11th March,
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in the last two years representatives from his Department have visited Denmark in order to have consultations in that country concerning methods of controlling the spread of foot-and-mouth disease with special reference to ring vaccination policies.
The Minister's reply was once again rather disturbing. He said:
No countries have been visited in the past two years by representatives of my Department specifically to study ring vaccination".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 306.]
The Minister went on to say that there were two occasions when the subject was discussed by senior veterinary officers, but no visits to Denmark at all.
The Amendment would give the Government the opportunity to do various things. It would give them an opportunity to send their representatives to Denmark to discuss the matter in rather more detail. The Danes, after all, have rather more experience of this than we have. It would give them an opportunity to work out the financial implications rather better. Above all, it would give them an opportunity to face the practical difficulties which they are likely to meet.
I ask the Minister to accept that, rightly or wrongly, farmers in my constituency are very worried about this, and I believe that the debate tonight must attempt to allay their real anxieties. They make the point that there are great practical difficulties, which the Government would recognise if they took time. For example, it is necessary to muster large numbers of animals at short notice in one place to vaccinate them, and this can cause considerable stress at times of the year, such as at lambing and spring calving time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is entering into the merits of the Clause. He must keep on asking for more time.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for very little more time.
The point I am making is that if the Minister takes time to reflect—and the Amendment would provide the time—he would quickly see that there are times of the year—for example, lambing and calving time—which would present difficulties for his policy.
In addition fog or snow could create hazards for both men and stock; and there would always be difficulty in bringing in all the stock. Another danger would be the removal of animals from the relatively infection-free hills and outlying areas to farm steadings where they would be more likely to be exposed to the disease.
That is a quotation from paragraph 200 of the Northumberland Report, and my point in quoting it is simply to illustrate that that if only the Minister will take some time, as the Amendment provides, he will see that there are these practical difficulties, there are the financial implications, and there is the fact that we do not know sufficient about the disease, or, more particularly, about the vaccination. He should not rush this policy along and alarm our farmers at the same time.
I ask the Minister to weigh very carefully the undoubted anxiety among our breed societies and farmers. I ask him to take this little time to consider the points which have been made. He will have his power. He will only have to come to the House with a Statutory Instrument to be able to exercise it.

Mr. Godber: The short debate on this important subject illustrates very clearly the disadvantages from which we are suffering, in that we have not had the opportunity of a full debate in the House on the two reports of the Northumberland Committee. If the House had been able to consider them before the Minister brought forward this legislation, we and the farmers would have been able to appreciate the implications and the pros and cons of the situation.
The Clause provides for certain extensions of the existing power, and my hon. Friends are seeking to delay the operation of some of those extensions. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Northwich (Sir J. Foster) made clear, this would not necessarily achieve the object which some of my hon. Friends have in mind, because the Minister has the power now if he wants to use it.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the anxieties of many farmers about the use of ring vaccination. Two separate arguments have been adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who speaks with great experience, and who has studied this problem carefully, based his argument largely on the need to have full discussions with other countries to ensure that if this policy is introduced it will be done in a way which will do the minimum amount of harm to our international relationships in animal trading I fully endorse that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich took the matter rather further when he indicated that his main purpose in bringing about some delay was to seek to prevent the change being introduced in this Measure.
On behalf of the Opposition I am quite happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester and the wording of the Amendment. I am not happy to commit myself and my colleagues to a rejection of the idea of ring vaccination in toto. We want more time to think about it. My views might be affected to some extent by the results of the discussions that I hope the Minister will have—especially with other countries—on the effect on the export of our pedigree stock and the other relevant matters. I have a fairly open mind about the matter. I feel that we need more time.

Mr. Temple: My right hon. Friend is experienced in international negotiations. Does not he agree that discussions take a long time to bring to finality in this difficult field?

Mr. Godber: Yes, although I hope that they will not take as long as some international discussions that I have been involved in. I am thinking of disarmament discussions, but that goes outside the scope of the Amendment. International discussions can be lengthy. I should have thought that the 12 months' period that my hon. Friend has suggested would be a reasonable one to enable the Minister to follow up the various points put forward. I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment, or at least give


some thought to it, with a view to introducing his own Amendment in another place, because of the real worry shown in regard to the possible implementation of this provision.
I am not wholly convinced one way or the other by the arguments for or against ring vaccination. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich referred to the Northumberland Committee. It is only fair to say that the Government did not accept in toto its recommendations in regard to the import of meat. I think that the Government were right in their decision on imported meat, which means that my hon. and learned Friend's argument falls to the ground to some extent. If there were a continuing risk the argument in favour of ring vaccination might be greater. These are difficult and abstruse matters to argue now, and I do not propose to develop them further. I wanted to make clear my thoughts in regard to this rather difficult matter, and to say that I, like my hon. Friends, feel that more time is required. I therefore hope that the Government will give a sympathetic reply by saying that they will give careful thought to the points raised and have the fullest consultations before any definite decisions are taken.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Mackie: The Amendment would prevent our introducing ring vaccination for at least 12 months.—[Interruption.] Let me start developing my argument. Arguments were brought forward in Committee about the advisability of postponing ring vaccination for 12 months. As I promised in Committee, we shall consult all the various bodies about what might be the situation.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), with hindsight, said that there could be a situation in which we could handle an outbreak better than we handled that of 1967–68. That could certainly be the case. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made many points, all of which would be taken into consideration before ring vaccination took place. Obviously, there would be a study of the epidemiology of an outbreak and a veterinary study of the risks of the disease spreading. All that would be done.
I reiterate that the policy of the Government is that of slaughter to contain

foot-and-mouth disease. There has been talk of a cost of less than £500,000 up to the 1967 outbreak and £1,500,000 after it. These were average costs. The true cost was far in excess of them. No Government could agree to the postponement proposed here. We have a duty to try to protect the herds of this country. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) put the point fairly that we have not accepted the whole of the Northumberland Committee's Report and that most of the evidence about the outbreaks was circumstantial.
There are two distinct points here. The first is the question of safety in the country, whether ring vaccination will contain the disease. The second is the effect it will have on our livestock exports. I do not think that the second point has the tremendous significance that hon. Members suggest. Past outbreaks have affected exports of livestock. If we have ring vaccination, it is unlikely to increase that effect. This country imports non-vaccinated animals from France, and if there is ring vaccination only a minimal number of animals in the country will be done, and, of course, it is a dead vaccine.
If the Amendment were accepted and we were confronted with a disease situation where all the expert advice available to us indicated that there was the possibility of the disease spreading to epidemic proportions, we would be unable to use ring vaccination in that 12-month period.
The Amendment would lay down an arbitrary period of 12 months for these consultations. We believe that the consultations can take place in much less time than that. If that is the case, why wait for 12 months? I give the House an assurance that the consultations hon. Members have been asking for with the exporters and the N.F.U. and all others concerned will take place and that we do not think that they will take 12 months or anything like that period. As we have decided that ring vaccination might be necessary, it would be ridiculous to lay down an arbitrary period of 12 months in which we could do nothing.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose——

Sir J. Foster: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order, There are two would-be interveners

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a vaccination policy we could say "Good-bye" to our exports to Japan or New Zealand.

Mr. Mackie: This is not a vaccination policy but a policy of ring vaccination to contain a disease. I do not know whether I am in order or not.

Mr. Speaker: I warn the hon. Gentleman—not.

Sir J. Foster: On a point of order. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, you are here to guide our debates. Sometimes, if it is said that a wrong statement is made, you are in a position to say whether that is a matter of opinion. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has misconceived what the Amendment says. He is just not right. He says that the Amendment would prevent ring vaccination from being used for 12 months. That is not so. Although it is 3.50, I beg him to correct his first premise. He already has the right to order ring vaccination. It is in the existing law. How could the Amendment prevent him from exercising that right? It will be ridiculous if he has to correct all this in HANSARD.

Mr. Mackie: The Amendment says that these provisions are not to come into operation earlier than 12 months after the passing of the Bill.

Sir J. Foster: That is an extra power.

Mr. Temple: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. A dual intervention may be quite attractive, but it is physically impossible.

Sir J. Foster: I do not want to seem in the least rude or imposing. That prevents the extra power of ring vaccination from being used. The Minister has the right—to order ring vaccination now under the 1950 Act, and the Amendment cannot touch that. The Minister may order the vaccination of any animal which comes into contact with an infected animal. He is now seeking power to vaccinate any animal in an infected area. It is that which we are asking him to postpone for 12 months.

Mr. Mackie: In fact it is ring vaccination which the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to postpone for 12

months. I can read the Amendment in no other way. It asks us to postpone ring vaccination for 12 months. I see no other explanation of the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: The Parliamentary Secretary missed the first bouquet which I handed to the Government, which was that they did not lose their nerve during the 1967 outbreak when they could have vaccinated. Ring vaccination is only another term for general vaccination, barrier vaccination. The Government kept their nerve in 1967, but if they had wanted to, they could have ordered vaccination under the 1950 Act.

Mr. Mackie: I do not see what that has to do with it. The Amendment simply says that ring vaccination should be delayed for 12 months. I cannot interpret it in any other way. If there were an outbreak, the Amendment would simply inhibit us for this arbitrary time. The hon. and learned Member wants us to change our minds, but we want to have discussions before coming to any final decisions, and that may take less than 12 months. It would be wrong to accept this arbitrary time and I could not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: This has been a rather disappointing debate on this complicated subject. I should like to thank all my hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment. Those speeches have been extraordinarily constructive, reasonable and amenable. I am extremely sorry that once again the Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood what we are trying to achieve. We have put our arguments as reasonably as possible, but I do not think that we can now press them further.
It seems clear that the discussions will take a good deal longer than the Parliamentary Secretary expects and that to a degree they will take place after the decision has been taken, which will make them nothing like as valuable as they would have been if the Parliamentary Secretary had been able to have all the information available to him before taking the decision. However, at this time we cannot take the debate further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 82, line 23, at end insert:
(4) Section 19(6) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 shall cease to have effect so far as it authorises the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to withhold compensation or other payment in respect of an animal slaughtered at his direction where the owner or person having charge of the animal has, in the judgment of the Minister, been guilty of an offence against the Act in relation to that animal.
(5) Section 79 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (penalties for offences against that Act) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in subsection (1), as amended by Part I of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) to £200 (the normal maximum fine) there shall be substituted references to £400, and for the reference in paragraph (b) to £20 (the maximum fine per animal where the offence is committed with respect to more than ten) there shall be substituted a reference to £50; and
(b) in subsection (2) (imprisonment in lieu of fine on repetition of certain offences within twelve months), the words "within a period of twelve months" shall be omitted.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59.

Mr. Mackie: The Amendment should commend itself because it makes two important changes. It removes the Executive's power to inflict a penalty by with-holding compensation. On the other hand, it enables the courts to impose heavier maximum penalties.
The new subsection (4) of Clause 99 implements a recommendation in the Part II Report of the Northumberland Committee. It thought that the criminal sanctions in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, should be adequate to deal with offences against the Act, and that it is undesirable for the Executive to have the power, at their discretion and with no appeal, to increase the penalty by withholding compensation. This power has not been exercised since 1954, when a similar recommendation was made by the Gowers Committee on foot-and-mouth disease.
Both the Northumberland and the Gowers Committees recommended increases in the maximum penalties for violating the requirement of the Diseases of Animals Act. Subsection (5) implements their recommendation, except to

the extent that the maximum fine is raised to £400, or £50 per animal where the offence involves more than ten animals, against the recommendation of both Committees of £500 or £50 respectively. This lower maximum has been set by agreement with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has established the policy that the maximum monetary penalty which can be imposed by a magistrates court is £400.

Mr. Temple: I should like to thank the Government for this Amendment. This is a proposal which I made in Standing Committee, supported very much by the National Farmers Union. It is a recommendation made as long ago as the Gowers Committee and reiterated by the Northumberland Committee. The House will be obliged to the Government for this.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 54, in page 82, line 24, leave out Clause 100.

New Schedule

S. 26 OF AGRICULTURE ACT 1967 AS AMENDED

26.—(l) The appropriate Minister may in accordance with a scheme approve, and (subject to section 47 of the Agriculture Act 1970) make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of

(a) transactions for securing that agricultural land which is or forms part of an uncommercial unit, but which together with some other agricultural land could form an intermediate unit or commercial unit, shall be owned and occupied with that other land, and
(b) transactions for securing that, where an intermediate unit or a commercial unit is not all in the same ownership, any part of it comes to be in the same ownership as the rest of that unit, or in the same ownership as some other part of that unit, but excluding transactions which bring into the same ownership and occupation two or more parts of the unit each of which could by itself form a commercial unit, and
(c) transfers or exchanges of agricultural land (or estates or interests in agricultural land) for the purpose of giving more satisfactory boundaries to one or more agricultural units;

and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, such assumptions as the appropriate Minister may consider reasonable may be made as to the works and facilities which will be carried out or provided for the benefit of the unit to be formed.

Transactions within paragraphs (a) and (b) above are in this Part of this Act referred to as "amalgamations", and transactions within paragraph (c) are in this Part of this Act referred to as "boundary adjustments".

(2) A scheme under this section may restrict the amalgamations and boundary adjustments to which it applies in any way and may in particular exclude amalgamations of land which has reverted from being in single ownership or occupation.

(3) The expenditure towards which a grant may be made under this section in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment shall be any costs of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment of any description specified in the scheme.

(4) A scheme under this section may make different provision for different circumstances.

(5) The amount of any grant payable under this section towards expenditure shall be determined in such manner as may be provided for by or under the scheme.

(6) A scheme under this section shall provide for grant in respect of such of any expenditure such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above as is approved for the purposes of grant by the appropriate Minister in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved by that Minister in pursuance of the scheme, and any such approval—

(a) may be given either before or, in any case where the appropriate Minister thinks fit, after the expenditure has been incurred or the amalgamation or boundary adjustment has been carried out;
(b) may be given subject to such conditions as the appropriate Minister may specify, and in particular subject to any condition as to the time within which the amalgamation or boundary adjustment is to be carried out or as to the carrying out or provision within a specified period of specified works or facilities appearing to the appropriate Minister to be necessary as a consequence of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment;
(c) may be varied or withdrawn by the appropriate Minister with the written consent of the person on whose application the approval was given;

and the appropriate Minister may, if he thinks fit, for the purposes of a claim for grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 issue a certificate with respect to any work or facility that he considers it to be necessary or desirable as a consequence of an amalgamation, or to be necessary as a consequence of a boundary adjustment, approved by that Minister in pursuance of the scheme.

(7) After the payment of any grant under this section, any grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 in respect of any work or facility certified under subsection (6) above or any grant under subsection (1)(a) of the next following section in connection with an amalgamation the relevant unit shall be subject to the provisions of Schedule 3 to this Act and—


(a) the appropriate Minister shall not approve the amalgamation unless satisfied that all persons having an estate or interest in the relevant unit have given their written consent to the application of that Schedule to the relevant unit,
(b) the relevant unit shall be, or be the part of, the agricultural unit or units specified for the purposes of this subsection by the appropriate Minister in the document giving his approval to the amalgamation, and
(c) in the said Schedule 3 as applied by this subsection "relevant Exchequer payments" shall mean—

(i) any such grant as aforesaid in respect of such expenditure as the appropriate Minister may certify as being expenditure related to the relevant unit, and
(ii) such sum as the appropriate Minister may certify as the sum representing his administrative expenses (including an appropriate proportion of overhead expenses and other fixed or general expenses) incurred in connection with making the grant,

and "the relevant date" shall, for any grant and the related administrative expenses, be the date when the grant was paid.

(8) In the case of the payment of any grant under this section or any such grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection in connection with a boundary adjustment the appropriate Minister may, if he thinks fit, designate in the document giving his approval to the boundary adjustment any land appearing to him to benefit from the boundary adjustment as land which, after the payment of that grant, is to be a relevant unit subject to the provisions of Schedule 3 to this Act, and paragraphs (a) and (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall apply in relation to the boundary adjustment as they apply in relation to an amalgamation.

(9) The duration of a scheme under this section shall be a period not exceeding seven years, but that period may from time to time be extended by further schemes under this section for periods not exceeding seven years.

(10) A grant shall not be made under section 16 of the Agriculture Act 1957 (which relates to grants towards costs of amalgamation and is superseded by this section) in respect of a transaction proposed in an application made under that section after the coming into force of the first scheme made under this section, and so much of subsection (2) of the said section 16 as limits the time within which applications may be made under that section shall cease to have effect.

(11) The following enactments—

(a) section 6(c) of the Hill Farming Act 1946,
(b) section 5(3) of the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act 1959, or
(c) section 2(3) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964,

(under which grant under those Acts may be recovered by the appropriate Minister if there is a failure to carry out proposals), and any provision to the like effect in regulations made


under section 77(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 or section 22(4) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, shall not apply where in the opinion of the appropriate Minister the carrying out of the proposals is, as a consequence of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved in pursuance of a scheme under this section or in consequence of the carrying out or provision of works or facilities certified under subsection (6) thereof, impracticable or

PART A


Repeals of enactments relating to capital grants


Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


1 Edw. 8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 70.
The Agriculture Act 1937.
Section 16.


3 &amp; 4 Geo. 6. c. 14.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act 1940.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 15(1).


3 &amp; 4 Geo. 6. c. 50.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Act 1940.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 1(1).


4 &amp; 5 Geo. 6. c. 50.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 3.




Section 12(4).


7 &amp; 8 Geo. 6. c. 28.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944.
Section 8(d).


10 &amp; 11 Geo. 6. c. 48.
The Agriculture Act 1947.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 96.


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 39.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 1.


7 &amp; 8 Eliz. 2. c.31
The Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959.
In section 1(4), paragraphs (a) and (b).




In section 1(8), the words from "section sixteen" to the word "to" where last occurring.


1964 c. 28.
The Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964.
Section 3.


1967 c. 22.
The Agriculture Act 1967.
In section 26, in subsection (3) the words from "(b) in" to "bound-aries", and subsection (4) from "and in particular" onwards.




Sections 30, 31 and 32.




In section 33(4), paragraphs (a) and (b), in paragraph (c) the word "and", and paragraph (d).




In section 34(1), in paragraph (a), the words "section 31, section 32 or", and paragraphs (b) and (c).




In section 34(3), the words "or an order under subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c) above", and the words "32(2) or, as the case may be".




Section 36.




In section 37, in subsection (1) the words "or section 30" and sub-sections (3) and (5).




Sections 41, 42 and 69(1)(b).




Schedule 4.


1968 c. 34.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.
Save for the purposes of grants to statutory water undertakers, section 41(1).




Section 41(2).

The repeal of the enactments specified in this Part of this Schedule shall take effect, subject to subsection (7) of section (Farm capital grants) of this Act, as from the date appointed under subsection (6) of that section, and shall not affect the continuance in force of any instrument made thereunder so far as the instrument is made under or by virtue of any enactment not repealed by this Act.

to no purpose or unduly expensive.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Further Amendments made: No. 56, in Schedule 4, page 92, line 2, at end insert:

No. 57, in Schedule 4, page 94, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 19(6), the words "where the owner "to "this Act or"';

No. 58, in Schedule 4, page 94, line 23, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 79(2), the words "within a period of twelve months"';

No. 59, in Title, line 3, leave out from '1950' to end of line 4.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been given a very thorough examination and has been improved by these discussions. I am grateful to hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee and to many other hon. Members who have contributed to this outcome. Part I gives effect to the domestic element of our proposals for the future marketing and subsidy arrangement for eggs. Since we considered the Bill on Second Reading I have announced details of the other element in our proposals. This is, of course, the introduction of minimum import prices for shell eggs and egg products. Together these proposals provide a comprehensive policy for the progess of the egg industry.
Our proposals in Part II of the Bill for a unified farm capital grant scheme have been very fully discussed, and voted on, but I do not believe that there is as much difference between us as some of our debates have suggested. We share the same objectives. We all want to continue grant-aiding agricultural investment, to simplify and streamline the capital grant system, and to use grant funds to the best effect. It is mainly on the question of how to achieve the last objective that we have seen cause to differ.
Before my Annual Review statement we were convinced that under our proposals to redirect these funds for capital investment the industry as a whole would be better off, small farmers stood to gain more than they would lose from the change, and the incentive to greater pro-

ductivity would be increased. Nor did we see any prospect that the fears of farmers about the removal of the benefit-to-the-land test would be realised. But my statement and the White Paper on the Annual Review must surely have cleared up any doubts that remained. The agricultural industry has a great deal to gain from these proposals, and I am sure that it will take advantage of them.
Under the farm structure scheme we propose to increase from £400 to £750 the amount of annual non-farm income which is disregarded in deciding whether an outgoer is eligible. This and the other changes should go a long way to remove the obstacles which experience has shown have deterred some potential amalgamaters and outgoers. They will help further to improve the structure of the industry in which all of us are so interested.
Part III of the Bill will help local authorities to improve their smallholdings estates. It has received a detailed and thorough examination in Committee, which has enabled us to clarify some points and to clear up a few misunderstandings. One false impression, however, still seems to linger in the minds of some hon. Members. This is that Part III represents an increase in Ministerial control over smallholdings authorities.
I want, therefore, to make it quite clear that we are giving up nearly all the detailed controls of the 1947 Act. For example, there will no longer be any regulations for the management of smallholdings. There will be no special controls over the application of smallholdings receipts. Authorities will be free to make their own loans to smallholders. There will be no requirement to appoint a separate smallholdings committee or to get its constitution or composition approved by the Minister. There will be no Ministerial powers of direction to alter the size or layout of individual smallholdings or to control their letting, and no need for individual schemes for the layout and equipment of separate smallholdings to be submitted to the Minister. Part III will be a fair and useful basis for partnership between central and local Government in the future development of statutory smallholdings.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It will make it unnecessary for me to


seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech. As the Minister knows, in my constituency there are over 1,000 part-time smallholdings. In Norfolk they are called bare-land holdings, I think. I would ask for an assurance, in addition to all the others the right hon. Gentleman has so helpfully given tonight, that county smallholdings authorities now will be absolutely free to continue part-time holdings where they feel the need exists and will be able to let them to local applicants.

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I realise his interest in this. Perhaps I may say a few words in answer to him. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the continuance of a reasonable number of part-time smallholdings. Smallholdings authorities will wish to consider the local need for such holdings when they are drawing up their reorganisation plans. There is no intention of forcing authorities to give up all their part-time holdings, and we recognise that in many areas they may still have a useful part to play in the structure of local agricultural communities. What is true in the hon. Gentleman's area is certainly true in my own, and in certain parts of South-West England as well.
I shall now turn very briefly to fertilisers and feeding stuffs, that is to say, Part IV of the Bill. These provisions have been warmly welcomed as constituting a substantial improvement over the 1926 Act. This must be largely attributed to the long and detailed preparatory consultations which we had. A number of suggestions were put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, both in Committee and today, resulting in some useful Amendments. This has made for a very worth while improvement in consumer protection.
In Parts V and VI of the Bill we deal with flood warning systems. I am glad to say that about half of the river authorities in England and Wales have already responded to these provisions for grant aid, which have retrospective effect. It is good to see so many river authorities acting so quickly, and no doubt all the others are now considering what needs to be done. I hope that they will come forward quickly with their schemes.
Both in Committee and today there has been much discussion of the problem of

tied cottages, which is dealt with in Clause 96. I recognise that this subject arouses great emotion on both sides of the House. The tied cottage is bound to present a problem of reconciling the conflicting interests of owners and occupiers, and it is the Government's duty to try to hold a fair balance.
As my hon. Friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries will confirm, I have given much personal thought, over many months, to this problem. We must bear in mind that the occupant of a tied cottage cannot have the same kind of security as the ordinary protected tenant, as that would change the whole character of the tied cottage system. One must also remember, when dealing with the question of agricultural tied cottages, that there are other types of tied cottage.
The justification of the system is that tied cottages are needed to house workers. Unless, therefore, they are really needed for working the farm, the occupant should have a reasonable minimum period of security, which we have set at six months. That is the substance of the Clause. All in all, the Clause represents a fair balance between the practical needs of the industry and the human considerations which arise when we take measures which affect people's homes.
I hope that both sides of the industry will regard this as a reasonable step forward and will co-operate to make it a success, because we have done as much as is reasonably possible to seek to solve this most complex and difficult human problem.
I believe that the House welcomes the arrangements in Clause 98 for financing the Agricultural Training Board. In agreement with both sides of the industry, we have worked out simple and economical arrangements for financing agricultural training through the Annual Review. I hope that the difficulties of the past are now behind us, and I know that the House would want me to wish Mr. George Huckle and his board every success with their important task in the future.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) speaks with authority because he makes a detailed study of, and consults the authorities on, the subjects which he raises. However, I hope that he will not persist in saying


that our slaughter policy is "a thing of the past." It is not. We will continue to rely on our slaughter policy as the means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease. I want that to be understood perfectly clearly.
Ring vaccination will be available to supplement slaughter if and when there are reasons for believing that the disease may spread rapidly or widely. After our experience in 1967 and 1968, a subject in which the hon. Gentleman took a great deal of interest and did much hard work, it would be most unwise for any Government to fail to take precautions which might help to prevent another epidemic on that disastrous scale. None of us who experienced that will ever forget it. As my hon. Friend said in his careful explanation, we shall be discussing our plans with representatives of the livestock industry, and we shall be taking into account everything that they say.
Finally, we are taking new powers to aid our campaign against brucellosis. The Bill will therefore provide incentives to voluntary effort and the necessary powers for compulsory area eradication programmes.
As I said on Second Reading, this is a long Bill which covers a number of very important subjects. It will help to provide the framework within which the industry will produce and market its goods in the decade to come. Notwithstanding the fact that it is to a large extent non-controversial, it has been properly examined in very great detail. We had 26 sittings in Committee and we have also had a long Report stage. Although there may have been occasions when we got on each others' nerves, I would like to pay tribute to hon. Members who worked hard on the subjects in which they took a deep interest.
Finally, it is a measure which above all else will help to make the industry more efficient. It reduces the farmer's work load, helps in buying and selling, and will accelerate the eradication of an insidious disease. For all these reasons I warmly commend it to the House.

4.11 a.m.

Mr. Godber: The Minister has sought to sum up the deliberations we have had on this Bill. I will make my comments very brief at this time of the morning.
In regard to Part I of the Bill I thought the Minister's analysis of the position was somewhat rosy. Egg producers have very real problems. We have discussed them during the passage of the Bill. This part of the Bill will produce problems and it may produce solutions. That we have to wait to see.
As to Part II, as the Minister said, we have had long and detailed discussions. He told us that in so far as capital grants were concerned his statement on the Price Review must have cleared up matters. Farmers will hear of that with a great deal of amazement. As I said the other day, a certain degree of confusion arose after that statement. I shall not pursue it at this time in the morning, but I hope that the intention of this part of the Bill to simplify matters for farmers—for that is what we are told it is—will prove helpful and that to some degree it will offset the bitter disappointment felt by many farmers who have lost grants for tractors and combines and do not yet know what adequate replacements there may be. This is felt keenly by farmers at all levels.
As to Part III, I was impressed about the powers the Minister is giving up. If he had told us that in Committee we might have proceeded more quickly. It seems that he is giving county councils complete autonomy, but that is not the way in which county councils understand it. They will study with interest what he said in his speech.
I do not wish to add anything in relation to tied cottages. I think that what the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said illustrated the difficulties of the problem. The debate we had may have helped to clarify the position. I do not wish to add to what I said on that. Nor do I add anything to what I said about the Agricultural Training Board. I join with the Minister in hoping that we are in for a better period on that matter.
On the question of ring vaccination and slaughter, I do not wish to add materially, but I think it a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary did not appreciate the points which my hon. Friends put to him. We thought that he misunderstood the whole tone of the debate. Our understanding is that the Government have power for ring vaccination


under the previous Act. That is why the Minister stock-piled vaccine, because he had the power to use it. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I fear, was inaccurate in its appreciation of the position. We still hope that the Minister will have further thoughts about this. I do not wish to tie his hands in the case of a further serious outbreak, but the matter requires further thought.
On brucellosis, I hope very much that the Minister's hopes will be fulfilled. We still feel that provision should be pressed ahead with more rapidly and that as soon as physically possible we should be faced with proposals for area eradication, the only firm basis on which we can go forward. The Minister has certain problems in getting this going, but he will have full support from this side.
We have had our criticisms of the Bill, but it has certain advantages and we have helped to iron out certain difficulties. I would pay tribute to the Minister and his team for the way they have listened and have come forward with a number of helpful points today. I congratulate them on the way they have conducted the debates over this long period, and I hope the Bill will achieve some part of the claims which the Minister has made for it.

4.16 a.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I promise to be brief at this hour of the morning. We have had a good debate, one of the best, because we must agree that hon. Members on this side have been helpful throughout this long Report stage. It is pleasant to find the Minister and his hon. Friends giving the Opposition so much credit for the help they have given the Government in making the Bill more effective.
Certain parts of the Bill do not apply to Scotland, especially Part III on smallholdings. This is important, and one is glad to know that the Government are producing measures to promote the welfare of smallholders. There is no doubt that there is a future for smallholdings. If one has a number of them it helps to keep up the population. It is necessary to have a certain number of people in the various areas to maintain the social services, and this is one benefit we find

in Scotland from maintaining the small-holding population.
Turning to capital and other grants, it is fair to say, and it is the duty of those of us who represent farming constituencies to point out, that while grants are generous in themselves, farmers and small holders find it difficult to find their share of the cash. This has been so for some time but we hope the situation will improve.
We had been expecting great things of the recent Price Review. In the north, with large sales of store stock recently, since the Review, we expected that at least a share of what went on to the end product would work its way back to the breeder, but it has not happened so far. This is one of the problems, and it is not easy to put across to the man in the street the difficulty which farmers find in putting up their share of the cost of improvements.
On the economics of the Price Review and increasing grants, it is rare indeed——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With very deep respect, we are not discussing the Price Review now.

Mr. Mackenzie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. That is the position, and one finds it is difficult not to refer to these matters when dealing with this important Bill.
It is indeed an important Bill and we hope it will make a substantial contribution to the industry's welfare and to the expansion of production. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome it.

4.20 a.m.

Sir D. Glover: I shall not filibuster or say anything to keep the House for long at this time of the night. Before we reached Third Reading, we had a very important debate on the question of drugs in agriculture. You, Mr. Speaker—I hope I put this delicately—rather implied that hon. Members should keep their speeches very short. I believe that that debate was one of the most important debates that the House has had for a long time. We were dealing with human lives, how people take food, and what the repercussions will be. The House was not quite at its best in curtailing that debate. We must protect the right of hon. Members even to bore the House to tears and to speak for half an hour. We must not say that an hon. Member must keep his


speech short on a matter of very great interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the Third Reading of a Bill none of which deals with the length of speeches in debate.

Sir D. Glover: I am perfectly prepared to accept your "shot in the arm", Mr. Speaker, and sit down. I do not want to delay the House. I am being sincere and trying not to filibuster.
We have had a very interesting debate on a very interesting Bill. I support the Bill. I do not think that anybody who is in the House at present opposes it. Our discussion of perhaps the most important part of the Bill was rather truncated because there was a desire not to over-emphasise or over-discuss a problem. This is not what the House is about. We should have debated that issue at greater length.
Having made that point, I welcome the Bill. I do not think that anybody really opposes it. We hope that it will improve the agricultural atmosphere and ease the problems of those involved in the industry and make their activities more productive, for the nation's benefit. I repeat that when, even on Report, a very important matter arises, the House should not be inhibited in its discussions. It should debate the matter right down to the fundamental issue, as it tried to do tonight, but I do not think that we got down to it.

4.23 a.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: In moving the Third Reading, the Minister kindly paid tribute to hon. Members on this side. I congratulate the Minister on the vigour with which he made his speech. It was a tonic to hear him in such good voice at 4 a.m. I thank the Ministerial team for the courtesy they extended to me and to other members of the Standing Committee.
I want to touch on three points which strike me in the Bill in relation to the remoter areas. I make no apology for returning to these points.
I am not convinced that the Eggs Authority, set up under Part I, is the best answer to the problem of the egg producer in outlying areas, particularly the small egg producer. There are various deficiencies in the set-up of the authority which will not make for the best working of that side of agriculture.

What very much dismays me and many farmers and hon. Members on this side of the House is that although there are provisions for support-buying by the authority, there is no Government subvention to help. I think that that will prove in the not-too-distant future a very great disincentive to egg production, and cause a great deal of hardship for egg producers in the remoter parts of the country. I acknowledge that there are special subventions for Orkney and Northern Ireland for the transport of eggs to the mainland, but it will cost a great deal of money to get eggs from the remoter parts of the country, such as the constituency I have the honour to represent, to the main markets, the main centres of population, hundreds of miles away.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has already mentioned my second point, which concerns capital grants and the withdrawal of the tractor and combine harvester grants. These withdrawals, particularly of the tractor grant, will be felt hardest in the remoter areas, the areas of the smaller farm, where the smaller farmer is dependent on a turn-round on the bigger farms for obtaining secondhand tractors. It is the secondhand tractor market that will suffer in the short-term and long-term from the withdrawal of the grants. The withdrawal of the harvester grant is not as important for the remoter areas, but it has an importance in that if we as an agricultural nation are to remain competitive it is essential that our machinery be kept up to date.
Finally, I would refer to the new Clause on brucellosis, a most important addition to the Bill. I think that it was the urgency with which my hon. Friends presented the case in Committee that prompted the Government to put in this provision. We welcome it, and hope that the area schemes which it proposes will be brought about very soon. If I may be parochial, I suggest to the Minister that the North-East of Scotland is an ideal place to start an eradication centre.
The Bill is complicated and long. I have thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Committee that considered it. Having gone all the way through with the Bill, which will soon become an Act, I very much hope that its overall effect will be of great benefit to agriculture.

4.28 a.m.

Mr. Hawkins: I, too, have been very pleased to serve on the Committee considering the Bill. I think that it is the third or fourth of such Bills under the present Government, and we have become quite friends with hon. Members on the other side of the House through serving on the Committees. Our discussions on the Bill and the Amendments which have been accepted have constituted a very pleasant way of coming to agreement on certain subjects.
I want to refer to three or four points in which I have taken a particular interest. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) spoke about part-time smallholdings in Norfolk, or, as we call them, bare-land holdings. I was glad that the Minister said that he would not veto the maintenance of bare-land holdings where there was a need and where the smallholdings authority required them. We had two interesting meetings of smallholding tenants in Norfolk in February. The question was put by the chairman of the committee to the meeting, which was comprised almost entirely of full-time smallholders who knew that the number of holdings would be cut back. They said unanimously that they wanted to retain these bare-land smallholdings because they gave them a start and they knew that they would give their sons a start. In our part of the world, the black land, the better land is vital, and am glad to hear that the Minister will not veto this.
The tied cottage question is a vexed one but the Ministers have leaned over back-wards in an attempt to do their best and put forward something to satisfy their back-benchers. I have always been sorry that the National Union of Agricultural Workers refused to permit this side of the House to represent agricultural workers, refused to let us know of its feelings on such matters as this. Briefs were sent out by the N.F.U., and we would have been glad to have received the agricultural workers' views. I would have been glad to have been consulted by the union and would have given what help I could. This question is not now such a sore point, and I hope that nothing that has been said will make it so between farmer and worker.
As to agricultural training, I have been an opponent of the Agricultural Training Board from the start, not because I am opposed to agricultural training—it is absolutely essential—but because I have been opposed to the idea of the board. I would have liked to see an expansion of the facilities provided by the education authorities, through local county councils and others, rather than through a board, which could duplicate services. Since it has been agreed that this new board is wanted by all sides, I hope that it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do, but I do not like the system of payments. I never believe that it is a good thing to hide under a blanket and the whole of the Price Review the method of financing this board. I hope that we will know how much money is spent and how it is spent on this training.
I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming the new Clause dealing with brucellosis. It does not go far enough or fast enough and I hope that we shall have an area eradication scheme introduced. I would claim here—and the Minister has recognised this—that East Anglia is probably an area which, because of the absence of this disease, could easily start the ball rolling. We must have compulsory slaughter and full compensation.
I do not want to end on a sour note but I thought that the Minister was trying to wear rosy spectacles when he claimed so much for the Bill. It is a worth-while Bill and I am pleased to have served on the Committee, but it will not put a single penny into the pockets of the farmer and that is what he wants.

4.35 a.m.

Mr. Jopling: I begin by repeating what I said on Second Reading and in Committee, that the Bill should have been an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, since it starts with the constitution of an Eggs Authority, proceeds through 101 Clauses, and ends with the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as to injurious weeds. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we are still on speaking terms with the ministerial team who have been in office over the years, with the exception of the Minister. The Joint Parliamentary Secretaries have become familiar figures, hardly of stone, although they sometimes remind me of


Gog and Magog. We have some affection for them—which I hope is reciprocated—which has not been dulled by the long and rather tedious course of the Bill.
I said at the beginning of the Committee stage that the Agriculture Bill is an annual jamboree lasting from muck-spreading to seed time, and my prediction has proved right. On the day when Committee stage ended, on my farm the seed drill came out and seed time was upon us.
This may not be the last time on which we shall discuss the Bill. When the other place has worked its spell on the Bill, we shall no doubt discuss Lords Amendments. I would mention four points which I hope their Lordships will consider.
On Part I, I hope the other place will amend Clause 3 on the functions of the Eggs Authority as to market support, so as to ensure that there will be Government involvement in market support. On Part II, I hope the other place will do something about the tyranny of Statutory Instruments which is implied in the main Clause on capital and other grants, which has now been put back in the Bill. We have dealt at length with the exclusion of tractors and combine harvesters, and I hope the other place will give attention to this, and to the decision of the Government to give grants for large capital investments which have no involvement in the land. I was surprised that many hon. Members opposite who have powerful feelings against factory farming, which I do not share, were not here to join in the protest that Government money is to be devoted to developments, involving investment up to £100,000, which have no association with the land. This is a novel and rather dangerous step, to which I hope the other place will pay close attention.
Like my hon. Friends I have enjoyed once again taking part in what I have described flippantly as this annual jamboree. I hope that next time we have a similar Bill my party will be sitting on the benches opposite and introducing legislation to the Statute Book.

4.40 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: This seems to be a night of tributes. I, too, want to say that I have enjoyed this Agriculture Bill

and the cut and thrust of debate between the two sides of the House.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State with us, because I saw an item in the Evening Standard earlier reporting that the Minister of Agriculture had been abducted. It turned out to have been the Dutch Minister, however, who had been abducted for a short time by angry farmers and consumers in Holland. How-ever, there is no doubt that our Minister is safer here dealing with this Third Reading than he would be if he came to the South-West, where he might suffer the same fate as the Dutch Minister of Agriculture has just experienced. We are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here tonight. He is safer here than he might be in many parts of the country.
While I welcome some parts of the Bill, I am disturbed about other parts. It is like the curate's egg, and that leads me directly to Clause 1, which is concerned with eggs. On it, we have had a very free-ranging debate, but, at the end, I still have grave doubts about whether the authority will be able to function properly.
Among the many points in Part I which disturb me, I have strong doubt about the market support side, which I believe to be of tremendous importance. Without it, the authority is bound to fail, and I am sad to say that that is my general impression from discussing the matter with many people involved in egg production. I doubt whether the new egg authority will be successful without the support which the Government should provide.
I welcome Clause 6, which is concerned with quality control. This will become more and more important, and I only hope that the new authority will concentrate on that side.
Then there is the provision of levy and the methods of raising it. Again, I see many real problems ahead. One has only to think of what has happened with the Agricultural Training Board to realise the difficulties. I hope that a satisfactory solution will be found to the problems of where the levy is to be placed, because that is a matter of crucial importance.
I welcome Clause 25, with its references to consumer protection, branded sales, and all the other methods by which the new authority can protect the consumer.


They are important, and the consumer will demand them.
I am still unhappy about Clause 26, which provides assistance for the transport of eggs by sea. I feel that this provision will create more and more anomalies once it begins to operate. People in the remoter areas of Scotland, the South-West and Wales will be unhappy when they see others getting help which they are not able to obtain.
Then we come to Part II, and the capital and other grants. The provisions are fair enough, except that in respect of investment grants on tractors and combines. We agree with the rest. How-ever, the important question to ask is whether farmers can find the cash to go with it so that they may obtain these grants. This provision needs looking at again very carefully.
Part VII deals with the financing of the Agricultural Training Board. I welcome the fact that the Government intend to allow this to be brought before the House each year. This is worth while. Indeed, it is right that it should be discussed. On that score I congratulate the Government on listening to what we had to say about the matter and on bringing it forward.
Agriculture has problems. I am not sure whether the Bill will help financially in the long run. It will help in certain aspects, but it creates many problems, particularly in the egg industry.
I am still unhappy about Part 1. I think that the N.F.U. and the industry as a whole are also unhapppy about it. I hope that the Minister—I think that he hinted at this in Committee—has not closed his mind to making some alterations and that he will think again about support in some form or another when the deficiency payments finally run out. He said that there was time. I hope that he will consider this matter again. Unless he does, I am afraid that the authority will fail.

4.46 a.m.

Mr. Wiggin: The Committee stage of the Bill was the first on which I had the privilege to serve. I am not, therefore, experienced on how other Committees run their affairs. However, it is clear that there was—"friendly" would be an exaggeration—a comparatively cheerful

atmosphere as we battled through a lengthy Bill.
I hope that the Minister will not be offended if I indicate that I cannot agree with the final sentence of his speech on Third Reading when he claimed that the Bill would be of outstanding benefit to the farmer and to the industry. I have looked at the main provisions of the Bill. No financial improvement is gained in any Clause from start to finish, with the possible exception of brucellosis eradication, which will cost most of those who participate in the scheme under present arrangements rather more than they will gain.
The capital grants item in Part II must be considered a vital part of Government support for agriculture. I am sad that the tractor and combine grants go. We debated this matter very fully. I believe that the right way to help capital investment is through investment allowances.
I believe that the tied cottages Clause was put in under political pressure. The arrangements under the 1965 Act worked. The small number of cases that finally led to possession by a court order are proof of this.
I am sorry that the Agricultural Training Board has had to come to the Government for assistance. I have always believed in training but that people should pay for it and see what they are paying for. At the same time, they must get their money's worth both in administration and efficiency.
The Clause on the eradication of brucellosis, which I had the honour to introduce and, indeed, got through in Committee, covered all the requirements for eradicating this disease. The Government have seen fit to replace this with a Clause which has less sweeping powers. I believe that the eradication of brucellosis must now become the No. 1 animal health matter for the Ministry.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill will not put one penny into the farmer's pocket, but some of the matters with which it deals—flood warning, corn returns, fertilisers, and so on—will help the administration of some of the more complex parts of our industry. I apologise to the Minister if I upset him, but I am sure that on consideration he will appreciate that the point I was trying to make is valid.

4.50 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: It is only right that a good Scots Presbyterian should pronounce the benediction. After all, it has been a very long prayer meeting. It has been going on since last November. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) say that he had looked briefly at the Bill. He has had between November, 1969 and April, 1970, to study it. I do not regard him as a great judge of agricultural matters.
I have been a Member of the House, together with the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), for about a quarter of century. My long experience of the House is that whether we call it an Agriculture Bill, or an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the one thing of which the House can be assured is that it will take a long time to get it through. I remember that on one occasion we got half-way through a Bill, there was then a General Election, and we had to start all over again. I assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that he has a lot to look forward to in dealing with agricultural matters.
I reciprocate what was said by the right hon. Member for Grantham. In Committee on Agriculture Bills we do not get involved in bitter battles. We say what it is right and necessary to say, and there are differences of opinion, but this does not result in any bad feeling. I have not quite decided whether I am Gog or Magog. On looking at the benches opposite one might have thought that the hon. Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who sit so close together, would have recorded their speeches in the form of a duet. We had a small gamble on whether Box or Cox would be called first. The hon. Member for Torrington enjoys that enthusiasm which comes from his background.
We have noted the points made by the right hon. Member for Grantham. The new farm capital schemes will dispense with many of the detailed restrictions in the existing schemes and consequently will widen the field of eligibility and increase the amount of grant paid. The ending of the tractor grant will cover the relaxation of existing restrictions. In addition, the tractor grant fund will be used to broaden the

range of plant machinery eligible for grant. It is not a question of the Government saving money. It will go back to the industry in other ways. I hope that these various changes, including the tractor grant fund and the money paid to the industry, will be used to good effect.
We are delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) to the debate at this early hour of the morning. It was interesting to hear him draw attention to the importance of smallholdings, as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) on a number of occasions in Committee. It is because we share the hon. Gentleman's view that we regard it as important to adapt our provisions to the modern needs of the industry. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked what would happen to the new Eggs Authority. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for Torrington. We have discussed this on many occasions. I hope that all hon. Members will give the authority a welcome, and a chance to show what it can do. Indeed, when one thinks of the comments about the contributions made one remembers that the hon. Member for Banff welcomed the provisions for the Orkneys. Nobody has said a word about Northern Ireland, but those are two areas for which special assistance was provided.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West raised the question of the Agricultural Training Board. He has been consistent throughout our debates in his approach to this problem, and he has mentioned his reservations in connection with it. We hope that, like those who have criticised the Egg Board, he will give the training board a fair opportunity to do the job. We believe that it will make a contribution to the industry.
I did not agree with the criticisms of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about the way in which the House dealt with the new Clause introduced by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson). As far as I remember, no hon. Member was excluded from making his contribution to the debate on the Clause.
The hon. Member for Westmorland is always good value for money. I shall not follow up all the points he made. We have enjoyed our exchanges with him throughout. I am grateful to him for the compliment that he paid to my hon. Friend and myself. I think that we are the oldest occupants of this office in this century. It has been a great pleasure to us to serve agriculture for such a long time. I hope that as a result of our service, plus this Bill, the agriculture industry will be in much better fettle in the years that lie ahead than it has been in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MOSSLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL, CONGLETON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

4.57 a.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for keeping you up so late for another 30 minutes, at five o'clock in the morning, but this debate concerns the pressing problem of Mossley Primary School at Congleton, in my constituency. I am sorry that the hon. Lady, the Minister, has had to stay up, and particularly that her right hon. Friend is indisposed. I hope that she will make a rapid recovery.
Over the years I have had long correspondence with the Minister of State and the Cheshire education officer. The school in question was built in 1845, and it has been the subject of complaints for the last 60 or 70 years. In 1910 it was under criticism in respect of size and facilities. Even then, when money had real value, £1,000 was raised from voluntary and charitable sources. In 1920 there was again criticism of overcrowding. In 1939 the numbers had to be reduced. In 1944 it was understood that the school was scheduled for replacement. In 1958, to alleviate overcrowding, the village hall was leased until the spring of this year, and, accordingly, the social and community activities of the village hall had to be restricted. It means children cross-

ing the road from the old school to the village hall in all weathers.
In 1959 the situation was so bad that a deputation from the council planning and building committee met the county education officer. I then took the matter up with the Minister of Education. In 1964 it appeared that Mossley school was included in the school building programme. The new site was chosen some years ago and was purchased in 1963. Coming to this year, the number of pupils has grown by 42 per cent. since 1959. It will be 246 within three months. The school has only 46 per cent. of the teaching space required by the regulations. One class has no class room at all. It was suggested that a temporary class room should be erected in the village hall car park. This would further reduce the effectiveness of the village hall.
There is a long list of items which the school contravenes in the Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959—playing field accommodation, storage of teaching apparatus, storage of pupils' out-door clothing, washing accommodation, staff rooms, facilities for medical inspections and treatment. The school has no playing field accommodation, although a 5·8 acre site has been owned by the education authority for seven years.
The three class rooms have each been split into two by partitions, giving six class rooms. The girls' lavatory consists of five water closets and the boys' two urinals in the girls' playground. One water closet is locked for the use of the female staff. The remaining w.c. facilities have to be used by 120 girls and 20 boys.
One of the staff rooms is 9 feet 6 inches by 11 feet and serves the headmaster, the clerk and the staff of seven teachers as well as for medical inspection and treatment. Physical education is so restricted that some of the nine-year-olds sometimes do their physical education sitting at their desks.
The Minister of State wrote to me on 12th January. It was a long letter but there was little in it for me. She said:
No doubt in the light of the Circular Cheshire Education Authority will be looking again at the difficulties the Mossley School is experiencing, and it is to be hoped that this may succeed in providing relief. But if new accommodation still seems essential and the project is submitted for the improvements


programme, I will certainly see that it is carefully considered.
It referred to doing temporary improvements to the lavatories, but that does not go far enough in relation to the problems I have outlined. I put a Question to the right hon. Lady on 13th November. She replied:
The 1969–71 programmes are already fully committed but my right hon. Friend has today invited local educational authorities to submit proposals for a continuous and systematic programme of improvements and replacements of old schools, beginning in 1971–72, when I expect that some £15 million will be available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 123.]
That does not say much for Mossley school.
Mr. Armitage, the county education officer, wrote to me on 26th June last year. He is always very helpful in these matters. He does his best. His letter, however, did not go very far towards helping me. He is hamstrung by the policy of the Government and the lack of funds available for this type of school. He wrote to me again on 19th March, when he said:
…the Authority has submitted this school to the Department of Education and Science for inclusion in a Major Building Programme since 1964. It has indeed been submitted for each programme since that year. I find too that it was submitted in the first instance in 1960.
Therefore, both Governments are to blame.
His letter went on:
Quite clearly the resources will, therefore, be allocated in the main to old run down town areas. The County Education Committee, therefore, had to have regard to these criteria in submitting its programme.… Nevertheless, Mossley will be included in the list of longer term replacements required by the Department of Education and Science for submission by the end of April 1970.
There has not been an official inspection of Mossley by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools since 1957. That rather surprises me.
I could go on at great length about this school, but I will not do so because of the time. It is a disgrace in this year. We have talked about our record of advance, but there is here a serious lack of facilities. The children have done remarkably well considering all the handicaps which have been inflicted on them by lack of suitable accommodation.
I hope that the hon. Lady, who has considerable experience of these educational matters, will not tell me that this school will come up for consideration. I should like a definite assurance that the school will be replaced at an early date because it is manifestly lacking in facilities. It is of such poor quality that the only solution is to build a new school without delay.

5.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) for putting his case briefly, and I shall deal with it in the same way. I should also like to thank him for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend, and I will convey them to her.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, since 1964 the Cheshire local education authority has been submitting a proposal to replace the school. I am well aware, from what I have been reading since getting the details of this matter, of the condition of the school. The advice of the inspector for the area has also been sought, and it confirms that the school is in need of early replacement. I have recently received a copy of the parents' own report, and this gives a detailed account of the various deficiencies. It is commendable that the parents are taking such an interest in their children's school.
I would not dispute any of the points made in the reports about conditions at the school, but it is important to explain exactly what the position is, because resources for school building programmes are limited and the Department has had to assess the relative priorities of various proposals submitted. It has not been possible to include the proposal to replace the school in an approved starts programme.
The Government set the overall level of public expenditure for the school building programme, but it is important to point out that the resources available in 1971–72 are more than double those available in 1964–65 and they have been increasing steadily. The overall level is set so as to ensure that there is an adequate number of school places to take account of the rising population which exists in this area and the movement of population from one area to another, with an additional amount set aside to


allow for the replacement of old and unsatisfactory buildings.
In assessing the submissions from local authorities of projects to be included in approved building programmes—and it is the authorities' duty to plan and forecast the need for school building in their own individual areas—first priority has to be given to schools catering for new population. In other words, we have to provide first "roofs over heads" for children in population growth area. West Heath County Primary School and Havannah Lane County Primary School have been included in earlier building programmes and are now built to serve new housing in the Congleton area.
In recent years the Government have attached special importance to the improvement of social conditions and a considerable amount of additional resources has been made available for the replacement of old schools, particularly those in the socially deprived areas. In 1968 £16 million was set aside for the educational priority area programme relating to school building in the two years 1968–69 and 1969–70. This enabled not only 144 old primary schools to be replaced but also a number of minor improvements at primary schools to be carried out. Replacement projects costing nearly £10 million were included in the 1970–71 starts programme, enabling nearly 100 primary schools to be replaced.
Then last September there was announced a continuous and systematic programme of improvements and replacements, starting with £16 million, later increased to nearly £17 million because of the increase in cost limits for school building, to be included in projects expected to start in 1971–72. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce details of the first phase very shortly, but this is expected to include the replacement of over 150 primary schools. So a real attempt is being made to tackle the problem of replacing old and unsatis-

factory schools, of which there are and have been a large number. But we cannot under-estimate the problem.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any guarantees tonight about this school. The Cheshire local authority did not submit this school for inclusion in the first phase of the improvement programme, but local authorities were asked to restrict their submissions to the most urgent projects, with priority to be given to primary schools in urban areas of acute social need. This follows the recommendations of the Plowden Report, which led to the original educational priority areas being drawn up. First priority should be for projects to help children in those areas.
In the first phase, therefore, first priority in Cheshire had to be given to proposals for replacement schools in such areas as Crewe, Dukinfield and Stalybridge. Cheshire has approved projects which are going ahead. This is a continual systematic programme of improvements, and, eventually, the Mossley School should find a place when considered in relation to other submissions.
In this connection, Cheshire has just submitted to the Department proposals for the 1970–71 preliminary list which relates to school building in 1972–73 and will include the second phase of the improvement and replacement programme. The authority has included the Mossley School replacement in this proposal and is pressing it not only because of the need to replace the old unsatisfactory buildings but also because of the increasing population in the area. My right hon. Friend expects to announce details of the approved list in the summer. This proposal will be considered fairly and sympathetically. I assure the hon. Member that I will draw his representations to my right hon. Friend's attention and urge him to consider them as sympathetically as he can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Five o'clock a.m.